Multi-Agent Debate Campaign
Core question: Can this artifact survive structured adversarial debate?
Methodology Sources
- Irving et al. (2018) — AI Safety via Debate
- Du et al. (2023) — Society of Mind multi-agent sharing
- Liang et al. (2023) — MAD (Multi-Agent Debate)
- Toulmin (1958) — Argumentation model (claim, ground, warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal)
- D3 framework — Deliberate, Debate, Decide
Strategy Routing
| Artifact Type |
Primary Strategy |
Fallback Strategy |
| hypothesis, claim |
critic-defender-judge |
adversarial-escalation |
| research-question |
multi-perspective-panel |
society-of-mind |
| idea, approach |
society-of-mind |
courtroom-structured |
| experiment-design |
courtroom-structured |
critic-defender-judge |
| gap |
multi-perspective-panel |
adversarial-escalation |
Budget Table
| Parameter |
S (Quick) |
M (Standard) |
L (Deep) |
| Debate rounds |
4 |
8 |
12 |
| Participating agents |
3 |
5 |
8 |
| Coverage dimensions |
3 |
5 |
7 |
| External evidence searches |
2 |
5 |
10 |
Tactics
- dialectical-escalation — Progressive pressure escalation based on confidence thresholds
- perspective-rotation — Sequential perspective evaluation with divergence aggregation
- evidence-tournament — Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment
Context Management
Each subagent operates in isolated context. The debate-architect designs structure before execution. Transcripts are passed between rounds via structured markdown. Saturation detection terminates when novelty drops below threshold.
Output
Produces DebateVerdict containing: survival assessment, key vulnerabilities, confidence score, debate transcript summary, and recommended mitigations.
Available Strategies
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Strategy |
When to use |
| adversarial-escalation |
Strategy: Progressive pressure escalation — starts with surface-level challenges and escalates to fundamental assumption attacks based on defender confidence decay. |
| courtroom-structured |
Strategy: Legal adversarial structure — prosecution presents case, defense responds, evidence is cross-examined, judge delivers verdict. Emphasizes evidence quality and procedural rigor. |
| critic-defender-judge |
Strategy: Classic triangular debate — Critic attacks, Defender responds, Judge adjudicates. Based on Irving AI Safety via Debate with Toulmin argumentation structure. |
| multi-perspective-panel |
Strategy: Multi-stakeholder review panel — diverse expert perspectives evaluate artifact simultaneously, then synthesize through structured deliberation. |
| society-of-mind |
Strategy: Multi-agent collaborative debate based on Du et al. Society of Mind. Agents share perspectives iteratively until convergence or divergence is detected. |
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. |
| stress-test-perspective-rotation |
Tactic: Sequential perspective evaluation with divergence aggregation. Each agent evaluates from a distinct viewpoint, then disagreements are surfaced and resolved. |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP |
When to use |
| context-checkpoint |
Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase. |
| context-init |
Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed. |
| debate-transcript-analysis |
Extracts key turning points, patterns, and insights from completed debate transcripts. Produces structured summary for verdict synthesis. |
| stress-test-saturation-detection |
Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal. |
| verdict-synthesis |
Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary. |
| weakness-classification |
Classifies discovered weaknesses into severity tiers (fatal/major/minor/cosmetic) with structured justification and exploitability assessment. |
1---2name: multiagent-debate3description: Campaign: Multi-agent structured debate for adversarial validation. Core question: Can this artifact survive structured adversarial debate? Methods: Irving AI Safety via Debate, Du Society of Mind, Liang MAD, Toulmin Argumentation, D3 framework.4---56# Multi-Agent Debate Campaign78Core question: **Can this artifact survive structured adversarial debate?**910## Methodology Sources1112- Irving et al. (2018) — AI Safety via Debate13- Du et al. (2023) — Society of Mind multi-agent sharing14- Liang et al. (2023) — MAD (Multi-Agent Debate)15- Toulmin (1958) — Argumentation model (claim, ground, warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal)16- D3 framework — Deliberate, Debate, Decide1718## Strategy Routing1920| Artifact Type | Primary Strategy | Fallback Strategy |21|---|---|---|22| hypothesis, claim | critic-defender-judge | adversarial-escalation |23| research-question | multi-perspective-panel | society-of-mind |24| idea, approach | society-of-mind | courtroom-structured |25| experiment-design | courtroom-structured | critic-defender-judge |26| gap | multi-perspective-panel | adversarial-escalation |2728## Budget Table2930| Parameter | S (Quick) | M (Standard) | L (Deep) |31|---|---|---|---|32| Debate rounds | 4 | 8 | 12 |33| Participating agents | 3 | 5 | 8 |34| Coverage dimensions | 3 | 5 | 7 |35| External evidence searches | 2 | 5 | 10 |3637## Tactics3839- **dialectical-escalation** — Progressive pressure escalation based on confidence thresholds40- **perspective-rotation** — Sequential perspective evaluation with divergence aggregation41- **evidence-tournament** — Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment4243## Context Management4445Each subagent operates in isolated context. The debate-architect designs structure before execution. Transcripts are passed between rounds via structured markdown. Saturation detection terminates when novelty drops below threshold.4647## Output4849Produces `DebateVerdict` containing: survival assessment, key vulnerabilities, confidence score, debate transcript summary, and recommended mitigations.5051<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->5253## Available Strategies5455Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.5657| Strategy | When to use |58| --- | --- |59| adversarial-escalation | Strategy: Progressive pressure escalation — starts with surface-level challenges and escalates to fundamental assumption attacks based on defender confidence decay. |60| courtroom-structured | Strategy: Legal adversarial structure — prosecution presents case, defense responds, evidence is cross-examined, judge delivers verdict. Emphasizes evidence quality and procedural rigor. |61| critic-defender-judge | Strategy: Classic triangular debate — Critic attacks, Defender responds, Judge adjudicates. Based on Irving AI Safety via Debate with Toulmin argumentation structure. |62| multi-perspective-panel | Strategy: Multi-stakeholder review panel — diverse expert perspectives evaluate artifact simultaneously, then synthesize through structured deliberation. |63| society-of-mind | Strategy: Multi-agent collaborative debate based on Du et al. Society of Mind. Agents share perspectives iteratively until convergence or divergence is detected. |6465## Available Tactics6667Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.6869| Tactic | When to use |70| --- | --- |71| evidence-tournament | Tactic: Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment. External evidence is collected, presented, challenged, and scored for relevance and reliability. |72| stress-test-dialectical-escalation | Tactic: Progressive debate escalation based on confidence thresholds. Each round increases attack sophistication until defender collapses or proves resilient. |73| stress-test-perspective-rotation | Tactic: Sequential perspective evaluation with divergence aggregation. Each agent evaluates from a distinct viewpoint, then disagreements are surfaced and resolved. |7475## Available SOPs7677Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.7879| SOP | When to use |80| --- | --- |81| context-checkpoint | Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase. |82| context-init | Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed. |83| debate-transcript-analysis | Extracts key turning points, patterns, and insights from completed debate transcripts. Produces structured summary for verdict synthesis. |84| stress-test-saturation-detection | Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal. |85| verdict-synthesis | Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary. |86| weakness-classification | Classifies discovered weaknesses into severity tiers (fatal/major/minor/cosmetic) with structured justification and exploitability assessment. |8788<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
yogsoth-ai