Facilitate structured technical debates with codebase evidence and docmgr integration.
npx skills add https://github.com/go-go-golems/docmgr --skill cursor-debate
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
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.
Define the decision question, pick 3–6 candidate perspectives, perform pre-debate research, then run a debate round using the framework.
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wjgoarxivRun adversarial two-researcher debates with judge-scored rounds and structured reports.
kevinlinIdentify customer questions, gather sources, and generate confidence-scored answers.
TwuanMinnDocument architecture decisions using ADRs and structured trade-off analyses.
hotriluanBrainstorm software architecture options with trade-off analysis and recommendations.
