yogsoth-ai Critic-Defender-Judge Strategy
Classic adversarial triangle: one agent attacks, one defends, one judges.
Method
- debate-architect designs attack vectors based on artifact type
- debate-critic generates structured attacks using Toulmin model
- debate-defender responds with counter-evidence and rebuttals
- debate-judge evaluates exchange quality and produces round verdict
- Repeat with escalating pressure (dialectical-escalation tactic)
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 → [for each round]:
debate-critic → debate-defender → debate-judge
→ confidence-calibration → (escalate or terminate)
→ debate-transcript-analysis → verdict-synthesis
Subagents
- debate-architect (structure design)
- debate-critic (attack generation)
- debate-defender (defense generation)
- debate-judge (round adjudication)
- confidence-calibration (escalation decision)
- evidence-scout (when evidence-tournament tactic active)
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 |
|---|---|
| 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. |
| evidence-scout | Searches for external evidence supporting or opposing specific claims. Returns structured evidence with source assessment and relevance scoring. |