# Decision Debate

> Run a formal multi-perspective debate on one contested MEL/SRHR design decision: persona agents mapped to real specialist lenses research the call independently and blind, debate one round, then a decision-memo-shaped synthesis keeps agreements and genuine disagreements visible for Ane to decide on. Use when Ane cannot decide between named options and wants independent perspectives argued. Token-heavy by design: reserve for real decisions. Not for sharpening a design she already leans on (/grill-mel), net-new builds (brainstorming), or a plain options paper (/decision-memo), and never for building anything.

- Skill: `gasserane/decision-debate` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gasserane/decision-debate`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gasserane/decision-debate/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: gasserane (https://skillmd.com/u/gasserane)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gasserane/decision-debate

---


# Decision-debate (MEL/SRHR)

A formal debate that brings independent perspectives TO Ane on one contested MEL/SRHR design call. It operationalises the CLAUDE.md three-perspective rule: several agents research the same decision from different lenses, argue once, and the result is synthesised for Ane to decide on. It decides nothing itself.

## Lane — when this skill, not another

The grill family differs by direction, not topic:
- **decision-debate** (this): brings perspectives *to* Ane. Independent agents research and argue a contested call Ane did not answer herself. Use only when the answer is genuinely uncertain and reasonable experts would disagree.
- **/grill-mel**: pulls *from* Ane. Interviews her one question at a time to sharpen a design she already leans on.
- **brainstorming** (superpowers): for net-new *builds* headed to a code spec.

Reserved for genuine, consequential, contested decisions. Never for building. If the answer is already known, use /grill-mel or /ann. If the task is to produce a deliverable, use /ann.

## Gate before running

Confirm two things before spawning agents, because this is token-heavy:
1. The decision is **genuinely contested** (reasonable experts would split), not just unfamiliar to Ane.
2. It is a **decision**, not a build or a deliverable.

If either fails, stop and route to /grill-mel, /ann, or brainstorming.

## Method — three stages

State the decision in one sentence, confirm it with Ane, then run:

### Stage 1 — independent, blind research

1. Pick the personas. **3 by default, 5 for a high-stakes call.** Each persona maps to a real specialist lens from `agent-improvements/agent_registry.md`, not an invented character. The default trio:
   - **Method** (evaluation-design / contribution-plausibility stance): what can the evidence actually carry?
   - **Political economy and decolonial** (political-economy-reviewer stance): whose knowledge counts, what power sits in the data?
   - **Operational feasibility** (ma-priorities / reader-position stance): can the people on the ground do this, and does it serve the MA?
   For a 5-persona run, add the two lenses most load-bearing for the specific call (for example gender-transformative, safeguarding, or a costing/efficiency lens).
2. Spawn the personas **in a single message** so they run in parallel (the Vi parallel fan-out mechanism). Each gets the **same decision brief** but a **different lens mandate**, and researches **independently and blind to the others** using WebSearch, the knowledge MCP, and the MEL Wiki.
3. Each persona returns: its position, its one load-bearing reason, and the evidence behind it. Apply the citation standard. Flag any unsourced fact with `⚠️` rather than inventing it.

### Stage 2 — one debate round

Give each persona the others' Stage 1 positions. Each writes a short rebuttal: where it concedes, where it holds, and why. **One round only.** No endless back-and-forth.

### Stage 3 — synthesis Ane decides on

Write one readable Tier 1 brief in the `decision-memo` shape:
- **Context** — the decision in one sentence and why it is contested.
- **Options** — each live option with its strongest case, drawn from the personas.
- **Points of agreement** — where the personas converged.
- **Genuine disagreements** — kept visible, not smoothed over. This is the value of the debate.
- **Recommendation** — the recommended option, with the dissent recorded next to it.
- **Risks and reversibility** — what the recommendation costs and how hard it is to undo.

## The no-write gate

The debate decides nothing. The synthesis ends with this exact line:

> **DECISION REQUIRED, this is a recommendation not a decision.**

The skill **writes nothing to any canonical file**: no wiki edit, no registry change, no committed document. It returns the brief to Ane and stops. Ane decides; acting on the decision is a separate step she takes.

## Scale escalation

For an unusually large debate where deterministic token control matters, run the same three stages through the Workflow tool's judge-panel/parallel pattern instead: parallel persona agents in Stage 1, a debate stage, a synthesis stage, with `budget` bounding the spend. The Workflow route needs explicit opt-in each time; this skill is the routable default.

## Close

Hand Ane the synthesis brief and stop. Do not adopt the recommendation, edit any file, or start building. If Ane decides and wants the decision acted on, that is a fresh task for /ann or the right builder skill.