How do I install the Multi Agent Debate skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add fudesign2008/multi-agent-debate in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Multi Agent Debate safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Multi Agent Debate?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Multi Agent Debate free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Multi Agent Debate?

fudesign2008 (@fudesign2008) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Multi Agent Debate by fudesign2008 — Agent Skill

Name: Multi Agent Debate
Author: fudesign2008

Multi Agent Debate

Stress-test a crash analysis, hypothesis, or technical conclusion by launching three adversarial agents in parallel — one defends, one attacks, one hunts new evidence — and resolving disputes with physical proof instead of argument. Always use this skill when the analysis has 2+ competing explanations that both seem plausible, when a conclusion relies on a single log sample or inferred chain longer than 3 steps, or when someone says "are you sure?", "that doesn't sound right", or challenges an assumption. Triggers: 辩论、求真、挑战假设、质疑分析、multi-agent-debate, "debate this", "challenge my analysis", "find holes in", "I'm not sure this is right", "verify this".

fudesign2008 2f80732 2 files · 8.9 KB Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

Multi-Agent Debate

Core rule: Reasoning disputes cannot be resolved by more reasoning. Only evidence arbitrates.

Quick Start

Write your hypothesis in one paragraph
List existing evidence (each with source: file, line, or command)
Identify 2–3 weakest links in your analysis
Fill in the three prompts below and launch in parallel

task(subagent_type="explore",  run_in_background=true, prompt="[DEFENDER]...")
task(subagent_type="oracle",   run_in_background=true, prompt="[CHALLENGER]...")
task(subagent_type="explore",  run_in_background=true, prompt="[EVIDENCE HUNTER]...")

Why separate prompts? Each agent must be blind to the others' goals — if the Challenger sees the Defender's framing, it anchors on the same assumptions it's supposed to attack. Fill in each prompt from REFERENCE.md independently.

Minimal prompt structure (fill in <...>):

DEFENDER:   "You are the DEFENDER for: <hypothesis>. Find direct physical evidence
             (file:line, command output, code) for each claim. List the 3 weakest
             points and collect pre-emptive counter-evidence."

CHALLENGER: "You are the CHALLENGER for: <hypothesis>. Find holes: alternative
             explanations, single-sample claims, inferences used as facts. For
             every alternative you propose, provide how to falsify it."

HUNTER:     "Find facts only — no inference. Answer: <2-3 specific questions from
             disputed claims>. Every answer must be a command output or code verbatim.
             Tag each: [SUPPORTS] / [CHALLENGES] / [NEUTRAL]."

Three Roles

Role	Goal	Agent Type
Defender	Find strongest evidence for the hypothesis	`explore`
Challenger	Find holes, alternative explanations, single-sample claims	`oracle`
Evidence Hunter	Find new facts only — no inference allowed	`explore`

5-Step Flow

Prepare — hypothesis + evidence list + 2-3 weakest links
Launch — all three agents in parallel (run_in_background=true)
Triage — split results into: agreed facts / disputed claims / new evidence
Arbitrate — for each dispute, find a command/file/code that directly resolves it; if only reasoning exists, mark [UNRESOLVED]
Conclude — write only what has physical evidence; disputed items stay pending

Conclusion Format

### Confirmed Facts [FACT:source]
### Reasonable Inferences [INFERENCE]
### Unresolved Disputes — verification method needed
### Corrected Mistakes — original → corrected | evidence

Evidence Tags

[FACT:file:line] · [FACT:cmd] · [FACT:N samples] · [INFERENCE] · [SPECULATION] · [UNRESOLVED]

No bare claims in conclusions. Every statement needs a tag.

See REFERENCE.md for full prompt templates with examples, common traps, arbitration decision tree, and evidence priority rules.

---name: multi-agent-debatedescription: Stress-test a crash analysis, hypothesis, or technical conclusion by launching three adversarial agents in parallel — one defends, one attacks, one hunts new evidence — and resolving disputes with physical proof instead of argument. Always use this skill when the analysis has 2+ competing explanations that both seem plausible, when a conclusion relies on a single log sample or inferred chain longer than 3 steps, or when someone says "are you sure?", "that doesn't sound right", or challenges an assumption. Triggers: 辩论、求真、挑战假设、质疑分析、multi-agent-debate, "debate this", "challenge my analysis", "find holes in", "I'm not sure this is right", "verify this".---# Multi-Agent Debate> Core rule: **Reasoning disputes cannot be resolved by more reasoning. Only evidence arbitrates.**## Quick Start1. Write your hypothesis in one paragraph2. List existing evidence (each with source: file, line, or command)3. Identify 2–3 weakest links in your analysis4. Fill in the three prompts below and launch in parallel```task(subagent_type="explore", run_in_background=true, prompt="[DEFENDER]...")task(subagent_type="oracle", run_in_background=true, prompt="[CHALLENGER]...")task(subagent_type="explore", run_in_background=true, prompt="[EVIDENCE HUNTER]...")```**Why separate prompts?** Each agent must be blind to the others' goals — if the Challenger sees the Defender's framing, it anchors on the same assumptions it's supposed to attack. Fill in each prompt from [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) independently.**Minimal prompt structure (fill in `<...>`):**```DEFENDER: "You are the DEFENDER for: <hypothesis>. Find direct physical evidence (file:line, command output, code) for each claim. List the 3 weakest points and collect pre-emptive counter-evidence."CHALLENGER: "You are the CHALLENGER for: <hypothesis>. Find holes: alternative explanations, single-sample claims, inferences used as facts. For every alternative you propose, provide how to falsify it."HUNTER: "Find facts only — no inference. Answer: <2-3 specific questions from disputed claims>. Every answer must be a command output or code verbatim. Tag each: [SUPPORTS] / [CHALLENGES] / [NEUTRAL]."```## Three Roles| Role | Goal | Agent Type ||------|------|-----------|| **Defender** | Find strongest evidence for the hypothesis | `explore` || **Challenger** | Find holes, alternative explanations, single-sample claims | `oracle` || **Evidence Hunter** | Find new facts only — no inference allowed | `explore` |## 5-Step Flow1. **Prepare** — hypothesis + evidence list + 2-3 weakest links2. **Launch** — all three agents in parallel (`run_in_background=true`)3. **Triage** — split results into: agreed facts / disputed claims / new evidence4. **Arbitrate** — for each dispute, find a command/file/code that directly resolves it; if only reasoning exists, mark `[UNRESOLVED]`5. **Conclude** — write only what has physical evidence; disputed items stay pending## Conclusion Format```markdown### Confirmed Facts [FACT:source]### Reasonable Inferences [INFERENCE]### Unresolved Disputes — verification method needed### Corrected Mistakes — original → corrected | evidence```## Evidence Tags`[FACT:file:line]` · `[FACT:cmd]` · `[FACT:N samples]` · `[INFERENCE]` · `[SPECULATION]` · `[UNRESOLVED]`No bare claims in conclusions. Every statement needs a tag.---See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for full prompt templates with examples, common traps, arbitration decision tree, and evidence priority rules.

Frequently asked questions