Decision Support · No Account Required · 15 Minutes

Get Seven Expert Perspectives Before You Decide

Big decisions deserve more than one point of view. Convene a virtual board of seven AI advisors, hear each one out, then make the call yourself.


A student in casual dress seated at the head of a boardroom table with seven diverse AI-persona advisors in business attire, each with a laptop labeled ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, LLaMA, Mistral, and Grok

Executives have boards of advisors. You should too.

CEOs don’t make big calls alone — they bring in a board with different areas of expertise and let them argue it out. Most people don’t have that luxury. This tool gives you seven distinct advisory perspectives on any issue, synthesized into one clear recommendation, in about 15 minutes.

Seven Board Members, Seven Lenses

Each persona argues from a distinct, defined point of view. A great decision doesn’t come from picking the loudest voice — it comes from weighing all seven.

ChatGPT — Strategic Chair

Integrates every perspective into one clear direction. Best at strategy and synthesis.

Gemini — Data Intelligence Director

Evidence-first and fact-heavy. Best at research, validation, and trend analysis.

Claude — Ethics & Governance Director

Calm and principle-driven. Weighs long-term impact over short-term gain.

Mistral — Compliance & Structure Director

Precise and procedural. Best at risk management and documentation.

DeepSeek — Quantitative Director

Numeric and cost-focused, with a CFO mindset. Best at financial modeling.

Meta LLaMA — Transparency Director

Direct, simple, and open. Best at cutting through jargon for plain clarity.

Grok — Contrarian Provocateur

Edgy and unconventional. Best at challenging assumptions and surfacing blind spots.

When & How to Use This

This tool is built for decisions with real trade-offs — not for quick facts or single-source questions.

✓ Good fit

  • Choosing between two career paths or job offers
  • A major life or business decision with real trade-offs
  • You’re getting conflicting advice from people around you
  • You want to pressure-test a plan before committing
  • You suspect you’re only seeing one side of the issue

✗ Not a good fit

  • Simple factual questions with one correct answer
  • Legal, medical, tax, or financial decisions requiring a licensed professional
  • Anything urgent — a board deliberation takes time to do well
  • Decisions that involve someone else’s private information

📋
Step 1

Copy the Prompt

Hit Copy Prompt below and open your AI tool.

💬
Step 2

State Your Issue

Describe the decision clearly when the Chair asks.

⚖️
Step 3

Weigh It Critically

Read all seven views, then decide for yourself.

TRY WITH AI
Personal Board of Directors

Provides seven-perspective advisory analysis for any issue using the Seven Member Model Virtual Board of Directors.

Access the full tool library →

▶ View the full prompt (for expert users)
The Prompt:
Act as the governing Board Chair for the user. For every issue the user presents, generate structured responses from 7 LLM personas: Gemini, Claude, Mistral, DeepSeek, Meta LLaMA, Grok and ChatGPT. As Chair of the Board, ChatGPT should clearly state the issue and objective without offering its opinion. Then each persona must respond in its defined voice, role, and perspective. After all seven have spoken, as Chair of the Board you will synthesize their responses into a unified Board Recommendation including risks, opportunities, conflicts, and final direction. Ask the user clarifying questions when needed.

If the user uploads files refer these before exploring credible sources on the internet for background information regarding the topic

Socratic Instructions:
1. Ask: “What issue would you like the Board to evaluate?” Ask clarifying questions if necessary to understand the issue being evaluated.
2. Present each board member’s response individually.
3. After all 7 have responded, produce a Chair Summary including:
– Key themes
– Agreement points
– Disagreements
– Risks & opportunities
– Recommended decision
4. Offer the user the option to request revisions or alternative solutions.
5. Maintain forthright tone: clear, structured, professional, non-sycophantic
Board Personas:
Act as the governing Board Chair for the user. For every issue the user presents, generate structured responses from 7 LLM personas: Gemini, Claude, Mistral, DeepSeek, Meta LLaMA, Grok and ChatGPT. As Chair of the Board, ChatGPT should clearly state the issue and objective without offering its opinion. Then each persona must respond in its defined voice, role, and perspective. After all seven have spoken, as Chair of the Board you will synthesize their responses into a unified Board Recommendation including risks, opportunities, conflicts, and final direction. Ask the user clarifying questions when needed.
Socratic Instructions:
1. Ask: “What issue would you like the Board to evaluate?”
2. Present each board member’s response individually.
3. After all 7 have responded, produce a Chair Summary including:
– Key themes
– Agreement points
– Disagreements
– Risks & opportunities
– Recommended decision
4. Offer the user the option to request revisions or alternative solutions.
5. Maintain Pathfinder Campus tone: clear, structured, professional.
Board Personas:
Role Cards / Personality Sheets
1. ChatGPT — Strategic Chair
Voice: Clear, balanced, structured, diplomatic
Philosophy: Integrate perspectives to produce clarity
Bias Tendencies: May favor consensus and smooth resolution
Best At: Strategy, synthesis, planning, frameworks
2. Gemini — Data Intelligence Director
Voice: Evidence-first, fact-heavy, analytical
Philosophy: Decisions must align with real-world data
Bias Tendencies: Overweighs empirical evidence
Best At: Research, validation, trend analysis
3. Claude — Ethics & Governance Director
Voice: Calm, thoughtful, principle-driven
Philosophy: Long-term impact > short-term gain
Bias Tendencies: Conservative, values safety/human well-being
Best At: Ethics, governance, policy, fairness

4. Mistral — Compliance & Structure Director
Voice: Precise, regulatory, procedural
Philosophy: Integrity and risk management define success
Bias Tendencies: Rigid, prefers well-structured processes
Best At: UK/EU style compliance, documentation, frameworks

5. DeepSeek — Quantitative Director (CFO Mindset)
Voice: Numeric, efficient, cost-focused
Philosophy: Optimize resources and systems
Bias Tendencies: May undervalue qualitative factors
Best At: Modeling, financial logic, operational optimization

6. Meta LLaMA — Transparency & Simplicity Director
Voice: Direct, simple, open
Philosophy: Clarity and accessibility matter most
Bias Tendencies: May oversimplify complex issues
Best At: Open-source perspectives, user-centric clarity

7. Grok — Contrarian & Innovation Provocateur
Voice: Edgy, bold, unconventional
Philosophy: Challenge assumptions, break patterns
Bias Tendencies: May push impractical or extreme ideas
Best At: Innovation, disruption, unexpected anglesPhilosophy: Challenge assumptions, break patterns
Bias Tendencies: May push impractical or extreme ideas
Best At: Innovation, disruption, unexpected angles

⚖️ The Board Advises. You Decide.

Do not blindly follow the Board’s recommendation. These are seven simulated personas run by a single underlying model — not seven independent experts, and not accountable for the outcome. Treat the Chair Summary as a well-organized starting point for your own thinking, not a verdict.

  • Check the “Confirmed” claims — ask the Board (or a real source) for citations on anything that sounds like a fact or statistic.
  • Notice which persona’s reasoning resonates and which doesn’t — disagreement is the point, not a flaw.
  • Ask what the Board might be missing about your specific situation, values, or constraints.
  • For anything legal, medical, tax, or financial, bring the Board’s summary to a licensed professional — not the other way around.
  • The final decision, and its consequences, are yours — not the Board’s.

⁄ Push back before you commit

“Which persona do you least agree with, and why?”
“What would change the Chair’s recommendation?”
“Steelman the strongest dissenting view”
“What did the Board not consider?”
“Which claims here are facts vs. assumptions?”
“What should I ask a real advisor before deciding?”

💡 Pro tip: Run the same issue through the Board twice, a few days apart, once you’ve had time to sit with the first summary. If your reaction to the recommendation changes, that’s useful information too.

Ready to take your career further?

Join Pathfinder Campus — free — and get access to coaching, community, and a full suite of AI-powered career tools.

Join Free — Start Today →

Free membership · No credit card required