yogsoth-ai Adversarial Escalation Strategy
Progressive pressure: escalate attack sophistication based on defender performance.
Method
- debate-architect designs escalation ladder (surface → structural → foundational)
- Level 1: debate-critic probes surface claims and evidence quality
- confidence-calibration measures defender resilience
- Level 2: debate-critic attacks structural coherence and logical dependencies
- Level 3: debate-critic challenges foundational assumptions and paradigm fit
- Each level only reached if defender survives previous level
Budget Table
| Parameter | S | M | L |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debate rounds | 4 | 8 | 12 |
| Participating agents | 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Coverage dimensions | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| External evidence searches | 2 | 5 | 10 |
Orchestration
debate-architect → [design escalation ladder]
→ [for each level]:
debate-critic (level-appropriate attack)
→ debate-defender → debate-judge
→ confidence-calibration
→ (escalate if survived, terminate if collapsed)
→ debate-transcript-analysis → verdict-synthesis
Subagents
- debate-architect (escalation design)
- debate-critic (multi-level attacks)
- debate-defender (responses)
- debate-judge (level adjudication)
- confidence-calibration (escalation trigger)
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use |
|---|---|
| stress-test-dialectical-escalation | Tactic: Progressive debate escalation based on confidence thresholds. Each round increases attack sophistication until defender collapses or proves resilient. |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| confidence-calibration | Calibrates confidence scores based on debate progression. Determines whether to escalate, continue, or terminate based on cumulative evidence. |
| debate-architect | Designs debate structure based on artifact type — selects attack vectors, assigns perspectives, determines escalation ladder, and configures round parameters. |
| debate-critic | Generates structured criticism from attack stance using Toulmin model. Produces claims, grounds, warrants, and rebuttals targeting artifact weaknesses. |
| debate-defender | Responds to attacks with counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Defends artifact using evidence, clarification, and rebuttal while acknowledging valid criticisms. |
| debate-judge | Evaluates debate exchanges, adjudicates argument quality, and produces round verdicts with confidence scores and reasoning. |