skills.rest
Pthahnix
PthahnixCOMMUNITY
Explore all skills by this author →
GitHub

Multiagent Debate

Orchestrate Critic-Defender-Judge debates to validate research artifacts.

393|34|Updated Feb 10, 2026
Search Tags:#debate#quality-assurance#SOP#ai-research#artifact-validation#multiagent
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Pthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine --skill multiagent-debate
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: Multiagent Debate
Source: https://github.com/Pthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine/tree/main/skills/tactic/multiagent-debate
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Pthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine --skill multiagent-debate

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Orchestrates the full Critic-Defender-Judge debate protocol to validate research artifacts (gaps, ideas, experiment designs, and results) with structured rigor and guardrails.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Orchestrates debate SOPs for gap, idea, experiment-design, and experiment-result workflows.
  • Enforces a minimum two-round Critic-Defender exchange before a Judge verdict to ensure deep validation.
  • Supports single-artifact evaluation or head-to-head comparison mode with clear, structured outputs.
  • Produces a DebateResult containing verdict, confidence, and a full debate transcript for audit and accountability.

Quick Start

Ingest an artifact and its type, then invoke the multiagent debate SOP to obtain a structured DebateResult.

Frequently Asked Questions about Multiagent Debate

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I validate research artifacts using a multiagent debate workflow?▼

Validate research artifacts by ingesting the artifact and its type, then invoking the multiagent debate SOP to obtain a structured DebateResult with a verdict, confidence score, and full transcript.

What is the Critic-Defender-Judge protocol for artifact validation?▼

The Critic-Defender-Judge protocol is an automated multistage debate mechanism where a Critic challenges an artifact, a Defender responds, and a Judge issues a final verdict after a minimum two-round exchange.

Can I compare two research ideas head-to-head using debate-based validation?▼

Yes, debate-based validation supports head-to-head comparison mode for evaluating research artifacts, returning a clear structured output that identifies the superior artifact based on the debate transcript.

What types of research artifacts can be evaluated through automated debate?▼

Automated debate evaluation can be applied to research gaps, ideas, experiment designs, and experiment results by routing each artifact type to its appropriate debate SOP for validation.

Do I need upstream strategies or SOPs to run a multiagent debate?▼

Yes, multiagent debate requires and coordinates upstream strategies and SOPs to ensure proper routing to the appropriate debate SOP and to enforce minimum debate depth for rigorous validation.

What limitations exist when using debate SOPs for quality assurance?▼

Debate SOPs enforce a strict minimum two-round Critic-Defender exchange before any Judge verdict is issued, meaning validation cannot be short-circuited for faster but shallower quality assurance results.

Related Skills

Explore More Education & Research Skills→
PthahnixPthahnix
393

Review

Orchestrate artifact review workflows with self-review, filtering, and debate escalation.

Community
Advanced
memectmemect
13

entity-extraction

Extract domain-specific entities from documents using regex and LLM methods.

Community
Advanced
PthahnixPthahnix
393

Self-Review Quick

Evaluate artifacts via a single Critic-Defender-Judge LLM call.

Community
Intermediate
PthahnixPthahnix
393

Debate Experiment Result

Coordinate and validate multiagent debate results into a structured verdict and transcript.

Community
Advanced