# Debate Agents

> Resolve a consequential decision by developing genuinely independent, credible positions and choosing between them with explicit criteria. Use when a question has two or more defensible answers, when evidence is ambiguous or contested, or when a single position risks sycophantic or premature consensus. Not for ordinary drafting or format choices.

- Skill: `forsvn-labs/debate-agents` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add forsvn-labs/debate-agents`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/forsvn-labs/debate-agents/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: forsvn-labs (https://skillmd.com/u/forsvn-labs)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/forsvn-labs/debate-agents

---


# Debate agents

Turn a consequential decision into independent positions, direct disagreement, and an honest choice.

## Establish the stakes

Name the decision and why it is consequential enough to warrant structured disagreement. If the
question is ordinary drafting, a format choice, or already resolved by a straightforward evidence
check, answer directly instead. Never stage a panel as visible process.

## Build independent positions

Create at least two positions that start from different first principles rather than echoing the
drafting bias or the user's preference. Each position must independently defend:

- premise: the claim that must be true for it to win;
- evidence: observed support and where it comes from;
- upside and downside;
- risk and what would go wrong;
- disconfirming condition: the smallest fact that would break the position.

## Make them disagree

Confront each position with the strongest version of the others. Attack the weakest link of each
position, not a straw man. When the briefing or user already favors one side, explicitly test the
opposite. Guard against sycophancy: agreement is not correctness, and a position is not true because
it flatters the request or repeats prior drafting.

## Resolve with explicit criteria

State the decision criteria before choosing—for example reversibility, downside severity, evidence
strength, or fit to the user's values. A single resolver applies the criteria and chooses; it must
not average the positions or split the difference. Return the chosen position, the criteria used, and
the evidence that would reverse the choice.

## Honest deadlock

If criteria and current evidence genuinely cannot separate the positions, say so plainly instead of
manufacturing consensus. Name the smallest test, fact, or source that would break the tie. If the
decision cannot wait, give the best bounded choice with the assumption explicitly labeled.

## Optional panel only when consequential

Offer a multi-agent panel only when the uncertainty is consequential and the host supports subagents.
Keep agents, votes, and internal reasoning private; return the decision and its reversal condition. A
capable single-agent application of this method remains the fallback in every host.