judge-with-debate

Run the judge-with-debate command with your solution path and task description. It dispatches a meta-judge to build evaluation criteria, then three independent judges score the solution and debate disagreements until reaching consensus.

Multi-agent debate is an evaluation pattern where independent judges analyze a solution, then iteratively challenge each other's scores with evidence across up to 3 rounds. This reduces individual bias and produces more accurate assessments than single-pass review.

Consensus is achieved when all judges' overall scores fall within 0.5 points and no criterion differs by more than 1 point. If consensus fails after 3 debate rounds, the persistent disagreements are flagged for human review.

Reports are written to the .specs/reports/ directory using the naming convention {solution-name}-{date}.{judge-number}.md. Judges append debate round sections to their own report files and read other judges' reports directly from the filesystem.

Avoid it for trivial checks where a single review suffices, since it spawns multiple Opus-model agents across several rounds. It is designed for high-stakes evaluations where rigorous, evidence-based scoring justifies the extra compute.