Facilitate structured multi-perspective debates for architectural decisions.
npx skills add https://github.com/rysweet/AzureHayMaker --skill debate-workflow
Please help me install this Agent Skill. Skill: debate-workflow Source: https://github.com/rysweet/AzureHayMaker/tree/main/.claude/skills/debate-workflow Command: npx skills add https://github.com/rysweet/AzureHayMaker --skill debate-workflow
Complex architectural decisions and trade-offs often involve conflicting viewpoints. This Skill orchestrates a multi-perspective debate to surface the best path forward.
Start a debate on a critical decision: "Should we adopt Architecture X for feature Y?"
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
Structured multi-perspective debate orchestrates competing viewpoints on architectural decisions by configuring debate rounds, assigning role-based agents to represent distinct perspectives (security, performance, simplicity, etc.), and converging toward consensus through defined criteria. This surfaces trade-offs and builds auditable decision records.
Use multi-perspective debate for major architectural decisions, complex trade-offs, controversial changes, and high-impact initiatives where conflicting viewpoints exist. It prevents blind spots by systematically challenging assumptions and documenting reasoning across 3, 5, or 7 configured perspectives.
Configure 2–5 debate rounds and 3, 5, or 7 perspectives depending on decision complexity and team size. Fewer rounds suit simpler trade-offs; more rounds and perspectives increase rigor for high-risk or controversial architectural changes affecting multiple domains.
Debate output includes structured documentation of positions held by each perspective, explicit challenges raised, and synthesis toward convergence. The result is an auditable, consensus-oriented decision record showing how competing viewpoints were weighed.
Debate applies to framework selection, trade-off analysis, and any high-impact decision. It excels when choosing between competing architectures, adoption decisions for major technologies, or resolving disagreement on implementation direction across teams.
andrew-t-jamesCompile project goals, constraints, and decisions into a structured design document.
djwmobleyOrchestrate Advocate, Skeptic, and Practitioner agents to stress-test a spec and produce a structured verdict.
rancapolyExecute data governance operations including schema validation, DQ scoring, and lineage tracking.
KevinBrown5280Coordinate multi-model adversarial debates with structured round documents and consensus artifacts.
