roundtable-debate

To prevent groupthink during multi-agent architectural reviews, use a structured debate skill that enforces independent parallel analysis before agents share opinions, ensuring divergent perspectives are preserved.

Evaluating design tradeoffs without anchoring bias requires an anti-groupthink protocol that forces agents into independent analysis before opinion sharing, integrating a dedicated devil's advocate persona for critical perspectives.

Yes, you can use structured multi-agent debate for contested specification risk assessment by dispatching specialized personas to rigorously evaluate contested points and mitigate consensus-seeking behavior.

A multi-agent debate orchestrator manages discussion cycles by handling persona dispatch and artifact channel communication, applying a two-round hard cap on discussion cycles to strictly bound the debate duration.

You should not use a devil's advocate approach for straightforward decisions lacking complex tradeoffs, as the overhead of orchestrating a multi-agent structured debate is designed for high-stakes architectural scenarios.

Yes, you need an orchestrator to manage multi-agent debate personas, as the system requires an orchestrator to handle persona dispatch, artifact channel communication, and enforce the two-round discussion cap.