How do I install the Dialectic skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add umputun/dialectic 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 Dialectic 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 Dialectic?

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 Dialectic free to use?

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

Who published Dialectic?

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

Dialectic by umputun — Agent Skill

Name: Dialectic
Author: umputun

Dialectic

Prove and counter-prove a statement using parallel agents to eliminate confirmation bias. Use when someone says "dialectic", "prove/disprove", "stress test this claim", "is this really true", "argue both sides", or when a statement needs objective analysis from opposing viewpoints.

umputun 679ccc9 2.9 KB Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

Dialectic Analysis

Objective analysis of a statement by running two agents with opposing goals in parallel, then synthesizing findings.

Process

Step 1: Launch Parallel Agents

CRITICAL: Both Task tool calls MUST be in a single message for true parallel execution. Do NOT use run_in_background. Do NOT launch sequentially. Foreground agents in the same message run in parallel and block until both complete.

Agent 1 (Thesis) — find all POSITIVE evidence:

what works well, improvements, correct patterns
supporting facts, proof the statement is TRUE
benefits, strengths, successful outcomes

Agent 2 (Antithesis) — find all NEGATIVE evidence:

what's problematic, issues, risks, anti-patterns
edge cases, proof the statement is FALSE
weaknesses, failure modes, hidden costs

Both agents must provide specific file paths and line numbers when analyzing code.

Step 2: Synthesize

After both agents complete, synthesize findings into an objective conclusion:

weigh evidence from both sides
identify where thesis and antithesis agree (strongest signal)
note unresolved tensions

Step 3: Verify

CRITICAL — after presenting the synthesis, verify it against actual implementation:

read the specific files and line numbers referenced by both agents
confirm the evidence cited actually exists in the codebase
check the implementation flow matches the claims made
verify the synthesis accurately reflects the actual code context
identify any misinterpretations or missing context from agent reports
revise synthesis if verification reveals inaccuracies

Use Cases

Architecture decisions:

/thinking-tools:dialectic this microservice split improves maintainability

Bug analysis:

/thinking-tools:dialectic the connection pool fixes the timeout issue

Performance claims:

/thinking-tools:dialectic caching reduced database load by 80%

Refactoring safety:

/thinking-tools:dialectic extracting this interface simplifies testing

Code review:

/thinking-tools:dialectic this implementation is thread-safe

Review changes:

/thinking-tools:dialectic review the changes in server.go

Key Principles

Eliminate confirmation bias — examining both sides simultaneously prevents anchoring on the first conclusion
Evidence-based — agents must cite specific files, lines, and facts, not general claims
Verification required — synthesis must be checked against actual code before presenting
Objective conclusion — the goal is truth, not winning either side

---name: dialecticdescription: Prove and counter-prove a statement using parallel agents to eliminate confirmation bias. Use when someone says "dialectic", "prove/disprove", "stress test this claim", "is this really true", "argue both sides", or when a statement needs objective analysis from opposing viewpoints.---# Dialectic AnalysisObjective analysis of a statement by running two agents with opposing goals in parallel, then synthesizing findings.## Process### Step 1: Launch Parallel Agents**CRITICAL: Both Task tool calls MUST be in a single message for true parallel execution.** Do NOT use run_in_background. Do NOT launch sequentially. Foreground agents in the same message run in parallel and block until both complete.**Agent 1 (Thesis)** — find all POSITIVE evidence:- what works well, improvements, correct patterns- supporting facts, proof the statement is TRUE- benefits, strengths, successful outcomes**Agent 2 (Antithesis)** — find all NEGATIVE evidence:- what's problematic, issues, risks, anti-patterns- edge cases, proof the statement is FALSE- weaknesses, failure modes, hidden costsBoth agents must provide specific file paths and line numbers when analyzing code.### Step 2: SynthesizeAfter both agents complete, synthesize findings into an objective conclusion:- weigh evidence from both sides- identify where thesis and antithesis agree (strongest signal)- note unresolved tensions### Step 3: Verify**CRITICAL** — after presenting the synthesis, verify it against actual implementation:- read the specific files and line numbers referenced by both agents- confirm the evidence cited actually exists in the codebase- check the implementation flow matches the claims made- verify the synthesis accurately reflects the actual code context- identify any misinterpretations or missing context from agent reports- revise synthesis if verification reveals inaccuracies## Use Cases**Architecture decisions:**```/thinking-tools:dialectic this microservice split improves maintainability```**Bug analysis:**```/thinking-tools:dialectic the connection pool fixes the timeout issue```**Performance claims:**```/thinking-tools:dialectic caching reduced database load by 80%```**Refactoring safety:**```/thinking-tools:dialectic extracting this interface simplifies testing```**Code review:**```/thinking-tools:dialectic this implementation is thread-safe```**Review changes:**```/thinking-tools:dialectic review the changes in server.go```## Key Principles- **Eliminate confirmation bias** — examining both sides simultaneously prevents anchoring on the first conclusion- **Evidence-based** — agents must cite specific files, lines, and facts, not general claims- **Verification required** — synthesis must be checked against actual code before presenting- **Objective conclusion** — the goal is truth, not winning either side

Frequently asked questions