What problem does it solve?
Single-perspective analysis of ideas and decisions has inherent blind spots that can lead to unexamined assumptions, overlooked trade-offs, and flawed conclusions. This Skill eliminates that risk by enabling structured, multi-agent adversarial debate that forces rigorous defense of positions against direct challenges.
Core Features & Use Cases
- 4 Configurable Debate Formats: Choose from adversarial panel, Oxford, fishbowl, or devil's advocate formats optimized for different decision types, from binary go/no-go calls to open-ended design choices.
- 6 Panel Compositions: Select from pre-built panels (classic, technical, strategic, research, stakeholder) or create custom agent teams of up to 6 members to match your decision context.
- User Interview Integration: Optionally inject stakeholder input between debate rounds to ground arguments in real-world constraints and domain expertise.
- Formal Verdict Generation: Produces convergence maps, attack/defense analysis, and clear winner verdicts with explicit reasoning to support final decision-making.
- Use Case Example: Use this Skill to evaluate whether to adopt event sourcing or CRUD for a new service, stress-test a microservices migration plan, or validate assumptions about a new product feature before committing resources.
Quick Start
Use the debate skill to run a structured adversarial debate on the question of whether to adopt microservices for your new platform, with a technical panel and 3 rounds of arguments.
