justnau1020 Debate
Adversarial evaluation of the current state of a feature, system, or codebase area. Five agents argue from different angles, a moderator synthesizes a verdict. The output is a readiness report -- not a plan, not code.
Use this when you don't know if what you have is good enough.
Invocation
/debate [topic] [--scope "focus areas"] [--constraints "known constraints"]
Examples:
/debate "API security posture"/debate "onboarding experience" --scope "auth, setup, first use"/debate "launch readiness" --constraints "feature X is gated behind flag"
Pipeline
Phase 0: Constraints Gathering (Main + User)
Before spawning agents, main MUST:
- Ask the user for known constraints:
- What's in scope for this review?
- Any decisions already made that agents should respect?
- Known limitations or trade-offs to evaluate against?
- Check memory for relevant project constraints
- Compile a constraints block:
CONSTRAINTS (non-negotiable):
- [constraint 1]
- [constraint 2]
DO NOT propose solutions that violate these constraints.
This prevents the #1 failure mode: agents recommending something already ruled out.
Phase 1: Debate (Parallel Agents)
Spawn 5 agents. The 4 debaters run in parallel. Moderator waits for all 4.
| Agent | Role | Method |
|---|---|---|
arch-critic |
Code auditor -- finds gaps, bugs, half-baked features | Reads source code, tests, architecture docs |
comp-critic |
Competitive benchmarker -- holds us to industry bar | Web search for competitors, best practices |
code-defender |
Argues readiness from actual code evidence | Reads source code, test coverage, recent commits |
industry-defender |
Argues competitive positioning from market context | Web search for market context, user expectations |
moderator |
Synthesizes all 4 reports into a verdict | Receives reports via SendMessage, writes report |
Agent prompt template for debaters:
You are [ROLE] in an adversarial debate about: [TOPIC]
Scope: [SCOPE]
CONSTRAINTS:
[constraints block]
Your job: [ATTACK gaps / DEFEND readiness] with EVIDENCE.
- Read the actual code, don't guess
- Cite specific files, functions, line numbers
- Compare against [competitors / best practices]
- Be brutal -- no hedging, no "it depends"
Send your report (max 50 lines) to the moderator agent when done.
Format:
## [Your Role] Report
### Key Findings (numbered, max 10)
### Verdict: [READY / NOT READY / CONDITIONAL]
### Evidence: [file:line citations]
Moderator prompt:
You are the moderator. Wait for all 4 debate reports.
Once you have all 4, write the readiness report to:
docs/brainstorms/{TOPIC}_READINESS_REPORT.md
Report format:
# [Topic] -- Readiness Report
> Generated: [date] | Debate agents: 4 | Moderator synthesis
## Verdict: [READY / NOT READY / CONDITIONAL]
[2-3 sentence summary]
## Consensus Points (both sides agree)
- [point]
## Contested Points (sides disagree)
| Point | Critics Say | Defenders Say | Moderator Assessment |
|-------|------------|---------------|---------------------|
## Critical Issues (must fix before launch)
1. [issue] -- [evidence] -- [severity]
## Improvement Opportunities (nice to have)
1. [opportunity] -- [effort estimate]
## Raw Reports
[Append all 4 reports for reference]
Phase 2: Handoff (Main)
Once the moderator writes the report:
- Read the verdict line only (1 line, not the full report)
- Report to user:
Debate complete. Verdict: [VERDICT] Report: docs/brainstorms/{TOPIC}_READINESS_REPORT.md To act on findings: /plan-features --doc docs/brainstorms/{TOPIC}_READINESS_REPORT.md - Clean up the team
That's it. Debate produces a report. Planning and execution are separate skills.
Main Context Discipline
- Phase 0: Conversation only. No tools except memory check.
- Phase 1: Only Agent/TeamCreate/SendMessage. Main does NOT read code, grep, or search.
- Phase 2: Read one line from the report (the verdict). Summarize to user.
Main's total context growth: ~30 lines. The entire debate happens outside main's context.
Anti-Patterns
- Main reading the full report. The report can be 200+ lines. Main reads the verdict line, tells the user where the file is. The user or
/plan-featuresreads the rest. - Debaters being polite. The whole point is adversarial tension. Critics should be harsh. Defenders should push back hard. Moderate positions produce useless reports.
- Skipping Phase 0. Without constraints, agents will recommend prohibited libraries, impossible timelines, or solutions that violate business rules.
- Bundling planning/execution. This skill produces a REPORT. If you want to act on it, run
/plan-features. Separation keeps each skill focused and composable. - Moderator taking sides. The moderator synthesizes, doesn't advocate. If critics found 8 issues and defenders addressed 3, the moderator says "5 unresolved issues remain" -- not "defenders made a strong case."