yogsoth-ai Courtroom-Structured Strategy
Legal adversarial model with formal evidence presentation and cross-examination.
Method
- debate-architect structures the case — defines charges (weaknesses to probe)
- debate-critic (prosecution) presents opening arguments with evidence
- evidence-scout gathers supporting/opposing evidence from external sources
- debate-defender presents counter-case
- cross-examination probes both sides for inconsistencies
- debate-judge delivers structured verdict per charge
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 → [define charges]
→ [for each charge]:
debate-critic (prosecution) → evidence-scout
→ debate-defender → evidence-scout
→ cross-examination → debate-judge
→ debate-transcript-analysis → verdict-synthesis
Subagents
- debate-architect (case structure)
- debate-critic (prosecution)
- debate-defender (defense counsel)
- evidence-scout (evidence gathering)
- cross-examination (probing)
- debate-judge (verdict per charge)
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use |
|---|---|
| evidence-tournament | Tactic: Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment. External evidence is collected, presented, challenged, and scored for relevance and reliability. |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| cross-examination | Probes defender responses for inconsistencies, logical gaps, and unsupported claims. Acts as follow-up interrogation after initial defense. |
| 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. |
| evidence-scout | Searches for external evidence supporting or opposing specific claims. Returns structured evidence with source assessment and relevance scoring. |