Orchestrate structured adversarial debates between AI councillors to evaluate ideas.
npx skills add https://github.com/flosrn/.claude --skill workflow-debate
Please help me install this Agent Skill. Skill: workflow-debate Source: https://github.com/flosrn/.claude/tree/main/skills/workflow-debate Command: npx skills add https://github.com/flosrn/.claude --skill workflow-debate
This Skill provides a structured adversarial debate to rigorously evaluate ideas, plans, or decisions, ensuring all potential angles and risks are considered before a commitment is made.
Use the workflow-debate skill to evaluate the idea of migrating our monolith to microservices, considering security aspects.
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
Multi-perspective analysis evaluates a critical architectural decision by orchestrating structured adversarial debate among diverse AI councillors, cross-examining technical feasibility, business impact, and security to produce a nuanced verdict.
Surfacing blind spots in a project plan requires adversarial deliberation where multiple AI roles challenge assumptions through cross-examination and peer exchange, ensuring all potential risks are rigorously evaluated before commitment.
Yes, the risk assessment debate supports configurable domain focus, allowing you to target specific implications such as security, ethical considerations, or business impact during the multi-perspective deliberation rounds.
The adversarial debate mechanism works by engaging diverse AI councillors, like visionaries and critics, to challenge each other over multiple configurable rounds of cross-examination, ultimately producing a clear verdict with supporting rationale.
A structured evaluation of an idea produces a nuanced verdict such as PROCEED, PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS, RECONSIDER, or DO NOT PROCEED, providing clear guidance and supporting rationale for your decision.
You should avoid structured debate for risk assessment when a decision requires immediate action without the overhead of multi-perspective deliberation, or when the problem scope lacks the complexity to warrant multiple configurable rounds of cross-examination.
DevattomOrchestrate structured adversarial debates between AI councillors to evaluate ideas.
lyndonklFacilitate structured adversarial review of plans using role-playing and risk assessment matrices.
jscott3201Evaluate decisions through structured multi-perspective debate with Toulmin arguments.
npowSynthesize difficult decisions through structured multi-expert deliberation with weighted voting.
