spec-deliberator

A multi-agent deliberation process reconciles siloed stakeholder requirements by dispatching delegates with separate context bundles for product, engineering, and security, then relays their dialogue verbatim through bounded rounds until they jointly accept one revised specification.

The best way to align product and engineering teams on a contested feature spec is structured convergence, where delegates relay dialogue verbatim through bounded sequential rounds, maintaining versioned proposals until the panel accepts one auditable specification.

Yes, you can improve an incomplete specification when critical knowledge is spread across different documents by using disjoint perspective panels that apply specialized context bundles to capture constraints from product, operations, security, and legacy-system perspectives before adversarial validation.

To handle disputes and track amendments during stakeholder specification alignment, the deliberation process maintains versioned proposals, records disclosures and acceptance rationales, and persists a complete round-by-round deliberation record before handing off the revised spec to validation.

Yes, multi-agent adversarial validation works for bug fixes and refactoring specifications, applying multi-perspective stakeholder alignment to disputed or incomplete specs requiring engineering, operations, or data constraints before final validation.

Your specification may fail validation after stakeholder review if critical product, engineering, operations, or security knowledge remains siloed across separate stakeholders or repositories rather than being jointly reconciled into a single auditable revision through structured deliberation.