Find people who actually know about a topic — not just by org chart, but by real contributions and activity.
Clarify the topic
Work from the topic the user named. If it is ambiguous, ask a brief clarifying question before searching — for example, whether they need someone to answer questions, review code, or make a decision, and whether this is a specific internal system or a general technology. A single sentence of clarification is enough; don't interrogate.
Core Principles
- Activity over title: Someone actively contributing beats someone nominally responsible
- Multiple signals: Code + docs + discussions = true expertise
- Be skeptical: Just mentioning a topic doesn't make someone an expert
- Quality over quantity: 3 vetted experts beats 10 names
Phase 1: Gather Expertise Signals
Find people with multiple evidence of expertise:
-
Start with a synthesized answer from your knowledge tool:
chat "Who are the experts on [topic] at our company? Consider code contributions, documentation authorship, and meeting participation." -
Gather additional signals with direct searches:
employee_search "[topic]" code_search "[topic] contributors" search "[topic] RFC OR design doc" -
Cross-reference to find people appearing in multiple sources.
Phase 2: Vet Each Candidate
For each person found, evaluate:
| Test | ✅ Include | ⚠️ Caution | ❌ Reject |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence | Authored RFC, significant code contributions, documented expert | Single signal but significant | Single Slack mention, attended a meeting |
| Recency | Active in past 6 months | Active 6-12 months ago — note as historical | No activity in 12+ months |
| Role | Still on relevant team, still has context | Changed teams but retains knowledge | Left company, completely different role |
| Signals | 3+ independent signals | 2 independent signals | Single signal only |
Reject these:
- Single Slack mentions with no other evidence
- People who attended meetings but didn't contribute
- Names that appear in passing, not as experts
- Former employees
- People with outdated involvement
Phase 3: Generate Expertise Report
# Expert Finder: [Topic]
## Vetting Summary
| Candidates Found | Passed Vetting | Rejected |
|------------------|----------------|----------|
| [X] | [Y] | [Z] |
## Top Experts
### 1. [Name] — [Current Role]
**Confidence**: High
**Expertise Signals:**
- [Signal 1 with evidence]
- [Signal 2 with evidence]
**Why they're a good fit:** [Specific evidence]
**Last active:** [When]
**Contact:** [email/Slack]
---
## Also Consider
### Historical Experts
People who had expertise but may be less current:
- **[Name]**: Original architect (now on [other team]) — useful for historical context
### By Official Role
- **[Team]**: Officially owns this area
- **[Person]**: Team lead for [related team]
## Rejected Candidates
| Name | Reason |
|------|--------|
| [Name] | Single Slack mention — insufficient evidence |
| [Name] | No activity in 18 months |
## How to Engage
### For Quick Questions
Try [Person] in Slack — responsive on this topic
### For Deep Dives
Set up time with [Person] — has historical context
### For Official Decisions
Loop in [Person] — has sign-off authority
If No Experts Pass Vetting
# Expert Finder: [Topic]
## No High-Confidence Experts Found
Searched for experts on [topic] but didn't find people with strong evidence of expertise.
**This could mean:**
- This is a new area without established experts
- Expertise exists but isn't well-documented
- Different terminology is used internally
**Suggested next steps:**
1. Try a broader term: [suggestion]
2. Ask in [related Slack channel]
3. Check with [related team] leadership
Troubleshooting
Knowledge Tools Not Connected
If you see errors about missing Glean tools, confirm the Glean MCP server is configured for your host and re-run setup if needed before retrying.