debate

Orchestrate Advocate, Skeptic, and Practitioner agents to stress-test a spec and produce a structured verdict.

Updated Mar 18, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/djwmobley/pipeline --skill debate-djwmobley
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: debate
Source: https://github.com/djwmobley/pipeline/tree/main/skills/debate
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/djwmobley/pipeline --skill debate-djwmobley

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This skill provides an adversarial design review workflow that pits Advocate, Skeptic, and Domain Practitioner agents against a spec to surface hidden assumptions, feasibility gaps, and scope risks before moving to planning.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Three-agent debate: Runs Advocate, Skeptic, and Practitioner prompts to critique a spec.
  • Structured verdicts: Produces a formal verdict file with disposition, agreement points, contested points, and risks.
  • Risk and scope awareness: Identifies gaps, dependencies, and realistic tradeoffs to inform planning.
  • Workflow integration: Integrates with existing design-review workflows to catch issues early.

Quick Start

Dispatch the Advocate, Skeptic, and Practitioner prompts against the current spec to generate a structured verdict file.

Frequently Asked Questions about debate

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

FAQPage Schema
How does adversarial design review help de-risk a spec?

An adversarial spec evaluation uses three distinct agent roles—Advocate, Skeptic, and Practitioner—to critique your design specifications. This stress-testing surfaces hidden assumptions, feasibility gaps, and scope risks before you move to project planning.

How do I run an adversarial review on a design spec?

To run an adversarial review, dispatch the Advocate, Skeptic, and Practitioner prompts against your current spec. The debate generates a structured verdict file containing disposition, agreement points, contested points, and identified risks for mitigation.

What is included in a structured debate verdict for spec evaluation?

A structured debate verdict includes the final disposition, points of agreement among agents, contested points, and identified risks. This formal output documents hard constraints and decisions to enable project governance and inform risk mitigation.

Can I use model-agnostic prompts for automated spec evaluation?

Yes, you can use model-agnostic prompts for automated spec evaluation. The debate skill's internal prompts are entirely model-agnostic, allowing you to run the Advocate, Skeptic, and Practitioner critiques across any compatible language model.

When do I need an adversarial review for design feasibility and scope?

You need an adversarial review when preparing to move from design to planning. It catches issues early by identifying realistic tradeoffs, gaps, and implementation constraints across feasibility and scope before committing to downstream development.