Debate Gap

You can validate a research gap by running a structured multiagent debate protocol that tests novelty, feasibility, supporting evidence, and significance through staged critic, defender, and judge interactions.

A multiagent debate protocol for gap validation is an eight-step structured process where assigned critic, defender, and judge agents rigorously assess a research gap and produce a final verdict with a full transcript.

You assess research gap novelty and feasibility by applying a structured critic and defender interaction protocol that challenges the gap's core criteria and outputs a final governing verdict.

Yes, the debate protocol generates a complete collaborative transcript alongside the final verdict, ensuring full auditability of the evidence and significance assessments for your research gap.

You need a target gap JSON representing your identified scholarly research gap, which the protocol processes through phase-specific agent calls to deliver a structured verdict and documentation.

The protocol is specifically designed for gaps identified in scholarly literature, so it may not suit informal hypotheses or non-academic problem spaces lacking structured evidence and significance criteria.