beam-ai-team/expert-improve

Expert Improve

Iteratively refine work with expert feedback until it reaches excellence. Multiple passes, applies fixes, tracks improvement.

When to Use

| Use This | Not This | |----------|----------| | "Make this better" | "What's wrong?" → use expert-review | | "Polish until ready" | "Quick feedback" → use expert-review | | "Iterate until good" | Early drafts, sanity checks | | Final deliverables | Just want insights |

---

Quick Start

User says: "improve my strategy" / "polish this LinkedIn post"

AI does (auto-run after initial confirm):

1. Detect work type + feedback type needed
2. Select top 3 personas (use variance: suggest_personas.py shuffles by default)
3. Ask once: "I'll run [personas] for up to [N] rounds until 7+/10. Preview changes before applying? Preserve tone and story?" → then confirm Go
4. Run review → [Preview if requested] → Apply fixes → Re-review → Repeat until target
5. Output improved version + score progression

---

Execution Flow

Step 1: Setup (One Confirmation)

Got it. I'll improve this with expert feedback.

📋 Detected: [WORK TYPE]
🎯 Goal: Refine until all experts score 7+/10

Reviewers:
1. **[Persona 1]** — [Domain]
2. **[Persona 2]** — [Domain]  
3. **[Persona 3]** — [Domain]

Plan: Up to 2 rounds of review + improvement

Options:
• Preview changes before applying? (recommended if you've had experts "go the wrong way")
• Preserve tone and story? (only fix clarity/facts; don't change voice or narrative arc)

Start? (Enter = yes, or customize personas/rounds/options)

After confirmation, run. If "preview" is on, show proposed changes and ask "Apply these? (y/n or edit)". If "preserve tone and story" is on, only apply fixes that don't change tone or narrative.

---

Step 2: Review Round (Auto)

For each persona:

═══════════════════════════════════════
[PERSONA NAME] — Round [N]
═══════════════════════════════════════

SCORE: X/10

STRENGTHS:
• [Keep this]
• [Keep this]

ISSUES:
• [Problem] → Fix: [Specific action]
• [Problem] → Fix: [Specific action]

KEY FIX:
[Most important change to make]

Summary after all reviews:

📊 ROUND [N] SCORES

| Expert | Score | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| [Name] | X/10 | ✅ Ready / ⚠️ Needs fix |
| [Name] | X/10 | ✅ Ready / ⚠️ Needs fix |
| [Name] | X/10 | ✅ Ready / ⚠️ Needs fix |
| **Avg** | **X.X** | [Target: 7+] |

---

Step 3: Improve (Auto or Preview)

Prioritize by consensus. If user asked to preserve tone and story, only include fixes that improve clarity, accuracy, or structure—do not change voice, tone, or narrative arc.

🔧 APPLYING IMPROVEMENTS

MUST FIX (2+ experts agree):
1. [Issue] → [Change being made]

FIXING (single expert, high impact):
2. [Issue] → [Change being made]

PRESERVING (praised by experts):
• [Strength 1]
• [Strength 2]

If preview mode is on: Show the list of proposed changes and the full improved version as a draft. Ask: "Apply these changes? (y / n / or tell me which to drop)". Only apply after user confirms or edits.

If preview mode is off: Show improved version (no confirmation needed, just execute):

📝 IMPROVED VERSION (Round [N])

[Updated content with changes applied]

Changes made:
✓ [Change 1]
✓ [Change 2]
✓ [Change 3]

---

Step 4: Iterate (Auto)

Decision logic (runs automatically):

IF all scores ≥ 7:
    → DONE! Go to Step 5
    
ELIF rounds < max_rounds:
    → Run another round (back to Step 2)
    
ELSE:
    → Finalize with current version + notes on remaining gaps

Between rounds (no user input needed):

⏳ Round [N] complete. Average: X.X/10
   [Persona A] needs [specific fix]
   Running Round [N+1]...

---

Step 5: Final Output (Auto)

Create a NEW versioned file — never overwrite the original:

📁 SAVING VERSION

Original: [filename].md
Saving:   [filename]-v2.md  (or -v3, -v4 if versions exist)

If original was: 2026-01-12-strategy.md
New version:     2026-01-12-strategy-v2.md

File naming convention:

• First improvement: [original-name]-v2.md
• Second improvement: [original-name]-v3.md
• Include round info in file header

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🏆 FINAL VERSION — Saved as [filename]-v2.md
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

[Clean, improved content]

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
📊 IMPROVEMENT JOURNEY
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

| Expert | Start | Final | Δ |
|--------|-------|-------|---|
| [Name] | 5/10 | 8/10 | +3 |
| [Name] | 6/10 | 7/10 | +1 |
| [Name] | 4/10 | 7/10 | +3 |
| **Avg** | **5.0** | **7.3** | **+2.3** |

✅ Target reached in 2 rounds

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🔧 KEY CHANGES MADE
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

1. **[Change]** — Why: [Expert] said "[quote]"
2. **[Change]** — Why: Consensus from [Expert A, B]
3. **[Change]** — Why: [Expert] flagged as critical

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
💡 LEARNINGS
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

WHAT WORKED:
• [Pattern to replicate]
• [What experts praised]

WHAT FAILED INITIALLY:
• [Mistake to avoid]
• [Common pitfall identified]

---

Configuration Defaults

| Setting | Default | Adjustable | |---------|---------|------------| | Personas | 3 | 2-5 (use suggest_personas.py with shuffle for variance) | | Max rounds | 2 | 1-3 | | Target score | 7+/10 | 6-9 (ask "7+ or 8+?" if user wants explicit) | | Preview before apply | Off | Offer: "Preview changes before applying?" | | Preserve tone and story | Off | Offer: "Preserve tone and story?" (only fix clarity/facts) | | Auto-apply fixes | Yes | Turn off via preview mode | | Versioning | Create new file | Can overwrite if requested |

---

Versioning

Default behavior: Create new versioned files, NEVER overwrite original.

File Naming

Original file:        meeting-notes.md
After 1st improve:    meeting-notes-v2.md
After 2nd improve:    meeting-notes-v3.md

Version Header

Each improved version includes a header tracking its history:

---
version: 2
previous_version: meeting-notes.md
improved_by: expert-improve
experts: [Geoffrey Moore, Aaron Ross, Patrick Campbell]
rounds: 2
final_score: 7.3/10
date: 2026-01-12
---

[Improved content below]

Version Chain

When improving an already-improved file:

Original:  strategy.md
    ↓
Version 2: strategy-v2.md  (expert-improve round 1-2)
    ↓
Version 3: strategy-v3.md  (user requests another pass)

Detecting Existing Versions

Before saving, check for existing versions:

Looking for: strategy.md versions...
Found: strategy.md (original)
Found: strategy-v2.md (previous improvement)
→ Saving as: strategy-v3.md

Overwrite Option

Only if user explicitly requests:

User: "improve this and overwrite the original"

AI: ⚠️ This will replace the original file. 
    Creating backup: [filename]-backup-[timestamp].md
    Then overwriting: [filename].md
    
    Proceed? (y/n)

---

Scoring Guide

| Score | Meaning | AI Action | |-------|---------|-----------| | 9-10 | Exceptional | Done immediately | | 7-8 | Solid, ship-ready | Done (target met) | | 5-6 | Good foundation, gaps | Continue improving | | 3-4 | Fundamental issues | Flag, may need pivot | | 1-2 | Wrong approach | Stop, discuss with user |

---

Available Personas

Same as expert-review — see that skill for full list.

Auto-selection by work type:

| Work Type | Default Personas | |-----------|------------------| | content | Justin Welsh, Ethan Mollick, Geoffrey Moore | | strategy | Geoffrey Moore, Sequoia, Aaron Ross | | execution | Andy Grove, Keith Rabois, Claire Hughes Johnson | | sales | Aaron Ross, Geoffrey Moore, Patrick Campbell | | pricing | Patrick Campbell, Geoffrey Moore, Sequoia | | product | Dan Horowitz, Nikita Bier, Geoffrey Moore | | operations | Goldratt, Deming, Keith Rabois |

---

Example Session

User: "improve my GTM strategy document"

AI: Got it. I'll improve this with expert feedback.

📋 Detected: STRATEGY
🎯 Goal: Refine until all experts score 7+/10

Reviewers:
1. **Geoffrey Moore** — Beachhead strategy, crossing the chasm
2. **Sequoia Partners** — Market timing, product-market fit
3. **Aaron Ross** — Predictable revenue, sales process

Plan: Up to 2 rounds of review + improvement

Start? (Enter = yes)

[User presses Enter]

═══════════════════════════════════════
GEOFFREY MOORE — Round 1
═══════════════════════════════════════

SCORE: 5/10

STRENGTHS:
• Clear problem statement
• Good competitive awareness

ISSUES:
• Beachhead too broad ("enterprises") → Fix: Define specific segment
• No bowling pin strategy → Fix: Add expansion sequence
• Missing whole product map → Fix: Add beyond-core requirements

KEY FIX:
Define beachhead: "US-based RPOs, $50-500M revenue, serving Fortune 500"

[... more reviews ...]

📊 ROUND 1 SCORES

| Expert | Score | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Geoffrey Moore | 5/10 | ⚠️ Needs beachhead |
| Sequoia | 6/10 | ⚠️ Needs unit economics |
| Aaron Ross | 4/10 | ⚠️ Needs sales process |
| **Avg** | **5.0** | Target: 7+ |

🔧 APPLYING IMPROVEMENTS

MUST FIX:
1. Vague beachhead → Adding specific segment definition
2. No sales process → Adding ICP + outbound strategy

FIXING:
3. Missing unit economics → Adding CAC/LTV framework

PRESERVING:
• Clear problem statement
• Competitive positioning

📝 IMPROVED VERSION (Round 1)

[... improved strategy with changes applied ...]

⏳ Round 1 complete. Average: 5.0/10
   Running Round 2...

[... Round 2 runs automatically ...]

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🏆 FINAL VERSION — Saved as gtm-strategy-v2.md
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

[Final improved strategy]

📁 Original preserved: gtm-strategy.md

📊 IMPROVEMENT JOURNEY

| Expert | Start | Final | Δ |
|--------|-------|-------|---|
| Geoffrey Moore | 5/10 | 7/10 | +2 |
| Sequoia | 6/10 | 8/10 | +2 |
| Aaron Ross | 4/10 | 7/10 | +3 |
| **Avg** | **5.0** | **7.3** | **+2.3** |

✅ Target reached in 2 rounds

---

Difference from expert-review

| Aspect | expert-review | expert-improve | |--------|-----------------|------------------| | Purpose | Get feedback | Actually improve | | Passes | 1 | 2-3 until 7+/10 | | Output | Insights + actions | New versioned file | | User input | Confirm personas | Confirm once, then auto | | Speed | Fast (~1 min) | Thorough (~5 min) | | When | Early drafts | Final deliverables | | Versioning | N/A | Creates -v2, -v3 etc. |

---

Handoff from expert-review

If user says "improve this" after running expert-review:

AI: I have context from the review. Continuing with same personas.

[Skips to improvement phase, uses existing feedback as Round 1]

---

Iterate until excellent. Auto-apply fixes. Track improvement.