workflow-debate

Orchestrate structured adversarial debates between AI councillors to evaluate ideas.

1|Updated Feb 26, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Devattom/.claude --skill workflow-debate-devattom
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: workflow-debate
Source: https://github.com/Devattom/.claude/tree/main/skills/workflow-debate
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Devattom/.claude --skill workflow-debate-devattom

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) and scripts (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

This Skill provides a structured method for rigorously evaluating ideas, plans, or decisions by simulating a debate among AI councillors with distinct perspectives, surfacing blind spots and ensuring thorough consideration.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Structured Adversarial Debate: Simulates a debate between AI agents representing different viewpoints (visionary, critic, pragmatist, etc.).
  • Multi-Perspective Analysis: Ensures ideas are stress-tested from various angles, leading to more robust outcomes.
  • Use Case: When deciding on a major architectural change, use this Skill to have a visionary highlight opportunities, a critic identify risks, and a pragmatist assess feasibility, culminating in a nuanced verdict.

Quick Start

Use the workflow-debate skill to evaluate the idea of migrating our monolith to microservices.

Frequently Asked Questions about workflow-debate

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I stress test a decision using multi-perspective analysis?

Multi-perspective analysis stress tests a decision by simulating a structured adversarial debate between AI councillors. This surfaces blind spots by having agents cross-examine an idea from distinct viewpoints like visionary, critic, and pragmatist.

What is adversarial debate for evaluating architectural decisions?

Adversarial debate for architectural decisions is a structured method where AI agents simulate opposing viewpoints to rigorously evaluate a plan. It highlights risks, opportunities, and feasibility through parallel deliberation and cross-examination.

Can I configure the number of debate rounds and councillor perspectives?

Yes, you can configure both the number of rounds and the specific councillor perspectives for the debate. This allows you to customize the depth of cross-examination and the specific angles used to evaluate your idea or plan.

What's the best way to evaluate risks and opportunities for a major plan?

The best way to evaluate risks and opportunities for a major plan is through a structured adversarial debate. By orchestrating AI agents to argue different perspectives, you ensure the plan is rigorously tested for feasibility and blind spots.

When should I use an adversarial debate approach instead of standard evaluation?

Use an adversarial debate approach instead of standard evaluation when you need to rigorously evaluate a complex idea and surface blind spots. It is ideal for major decisions like migrating a monolith to microservices where multiple perspectives are critical.