cursor-debate

Facilitate structured technical debates with codebase evidence and docmgr integration.

13|3|Updated Nov 4, 2025

Search Tags:#architecture #trade-offs #debate #evidence-based #code-evidence #technical-decision

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/go-go-golems/docmgr --skill cursor-debate

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: cursor-debate
Source: https://github.com/go-go-golems/docmgr/tree/main/.codex/skills/cursor-debate
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/go-go-golems/docmgr --skill cursor-debate

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

This Skill enables teams to run structured, evidence-based debates that surface trade-offs and code-backed insights for complex technical decisions, rather than relying on gut feel.

Core Features & Use Cases

Structured debate rounds with multiple perspectives (human personas and code-entity perspectives) to surface different viewpoints.
Research-first workflow requiring pre-debate data gathering, concrete commands, and reproducible findings.
Integration with docmgr to store, relate, and synthesize debate outputs for decision records.
Synthesis output that captures tensions, open questions, and recommended next steps for design docs or RFCs.

Quick Start

Define the decision question, pick 3–6 candidate perspectives, perform pre-debate research, then run a debate round using the framework.

Frequently Asked Questions about cursor-debate

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema

How do I facilitate an evidence-based technical decision debate for architecture trade-offs?▼

To facilitate evidence-based technical decision debates, define the decision question, select 3–6 perspectives, gather pre-debate research, and run structured rounds including opening statements and rebuttals grounded in codebase evidence.

What is the best way to evaluate integration strategies using codebase evidence?▼

Evaluating integration strategies with codebase evidence requires a research-first workflow that gathers concrete commands and reproducible findings, followed by structured argumentation from multiple technical perspectives to surface trade-offs.

How do I structure technical debates to document trade-offs and open questions for RFCs?▼

Structuring technical debates for RFCs involves running multi-perspective debate rounds and generating a synthesis output that captures tensions, open questions, and recommended next steps for decision records.

Can I use human personas and code-entity perspectives together in architecture decision trade-off analyses?▼

Yes, architecture decision trade-off analyses can incorporate both human personas and code-entity perspectives simultaneously to surface different viewpoints and provide structured, multi-perspective reasoning.

Does this debate workflow integrate with docmgr to store and synthesize decision records?▼

Yes, the debate workflow integrates with docmgr to store, relate, and synthesize debate outputs, ensuring that technical decision records and trade-off analyses are documented and reproducible.

When should I avoid using structured debates for technical decisions?▼

Structured debates for technical decisions should be avoided when decisions lack complex trade-offs or when insufficient codebase evidence exists to support pre-debate research and reproducible findings.