KevinZai Dialectic Review
For important decisions, don't ask one agent "what should I do?" Instead, spawn opposing agents — one argues FOR, one argues AGAINST — with a referee to synthesize. This produces dramatically better analysis than pros-and-cons from a single agent.
When to Trigger
Proactively suggest dialectic review when:
- Choosing between approaches → tradeoff analysis
- Decision expensive to reverse → premortem ("imagine it failed — why?")
- Code or plan needs stress-testing → adversarial review
- Need creative ideas → ideation with challengers
- User says "I'm not sure" or expresses uncertainty
The Pattern
Step 1: Frame the Decision
State the decision clearly with context. Both agents get identical framing.
Step 2: Spawn FOR Agent
You are arguing FOR this decision: [decision]
Context: [full context]
Make the strongest possible case. Include:
- Direct benefits with evidence
- Second-order effects that favor this choice
- Why the risks are manageable
- Concrete implementation path
Do NOT hedge or present counterarguments. That's the other agent's job.
Your output will be evaluated by a referee.
Step 3: Spawn AGAINST Agent
You are arguing AGAINST this decision: [decision]
Context: [full context]
Make the strongest possible case against. Include:
- Direct risks with evidence
- Hidden costs and second-order downsides
- Better alternatives that were overlooked
- Specific failure modes and their likelihood
Do NOT hedge or concede points. That's the referee's job.
Your output will be evaluated by a referee.
Step 4: Referee Synthesizes
You are the referee. Two agents have argued opposing positions.
Decision: [decision]
FOR argument: [paste FOR output]
AGAINST argument: [paste AGAINST output]
Synthesize:
1. Which arguments are strongest on each side? (cite specific claims)
2. Which claims are factual vs speculative?
3. What's the actual risk level? (low/medium/high with reasoning)
4. What conditions would make each side right?
5. Your recommendation with confidence level (high/medium/low)
Format:
Strongest FOR: [top 2-3 arguments]
Strongest AGAINST: [top 2-3 arguments]
Unresolved: [arguments neither side settled]
Recommendation: [decision + confidence + conditions]
Modes
Tradeoff Analysis (default)
FOR vs AGAINST a specific decision. Use for architecture, vendor, approach choices.
Premortem
"Imagine this decision was made 6 months ago and it failed. Why?"
- Agent 1: List all failure modes
- Agent 2: List all success modes
- Referee: Risk-adjusted assessment
Adversarial Review
One agent wrote it, another tries to break it.
- Agent 1: Present the work
- Agent 2: Find every flaw, edge case, failure mode
- Referee: Prioritize issues by severity
Ideation
- Agent 1: Generate 5 bold ideas
- Agent 2: Challenge each — why it won't work
- Referee: Rank by feasibility × impact, noting which challenges are real vs theoretical
Anti-Patterns
- Don't use for trivial decisions (naming, formatting)
- Don't use when one answer is obviously correct
- Don't let the referee split the difference — force a recommendation
- Both agents must get identical context — asymmetric info biases the outcome