alexei-led/debating-ideas

<!-- generated by scripts/build/generate-skills.py — edits to this file will be overwritten by `make build`. Edit the canonical SKILL.md (or add a SKILL.codex.md / SKILL.pi.md sidecar to diverge). --> <!-- Platform guidance for non-Claude models (Codex CLI, Gemini CLI) --> <!-- Persistence: Keep going until the task is fully resolved. Do not stop at the first obstacle. --> <!-- Tool use: Use available tools to verify — do not guess at file contents, paths, or command output. --> <!-- Planning: Reflect between steps. Decompose complex problems into logical sub-steps before acting. --> <!-- Reliability: Assess risk before irreversible actions. Ask for clarification on ambiguity. --> <!-- Completeness: Generate complete responses without truncating. Review your output against the original constraints. -->

Dialectic Debate

Stress-test ideas by spawning competing perspectives, then synthesize and ground-truth against code.

$ARGUMENTS is the question or topic to debate.

If no argument provided, ask the user what they want to evaluate.

Routing rule: if the user wants open-ended idea generation, option discovery, or "what could we build/do?", explicitly say this is open-ended brainstorming and route to brainstorming-ideas or an ideation workflow. Use this skill only when there is a specific design decision, thesis, or bounded trade-off to stress-test. If no clear opposing positions exist or evidence is unavailable, stop and ask for a sharper decision instead of inventing a debate.

1. Frame the debate
2. Spawn thesis + antithesis agents
3. Synthesize positions
4. Verify claims against code

---

Phase 1: Frame the Debate

Parse the topic from $ARGUMENTS. Identify:

• The core tension — what are the two opposing positions?
• Stakes — what depends on getting this right?
• Scope — bound the debate to avoid sprawl

Frame as a clear binary or spectrum question. Examples:

• "Should we use microservices or a monolith for X?"
• "Is caching worth the complexity here?"
• "Should this be a library or an inline implementation?"

---

Phase 2: Spawn Thesis + Antithesis (Parallel)

Spawn two Explore agents in a single message:

---

Phase 3: Synthesize

Collect both results:

Synthesize into a structured verdict:

1. Where they agree — shared facts, common ground
2. Where they conflict — genuine disagreements with evidence
3. Weak arguments — flag claims that lack code evidence or rely on generalities
4. Verdict — which position has stronger grounding, and why
5. Conditions — when would the other position win instead?

---

Phase 4: Verify Claims

For any factual claims made by either side (file references, pattern assertions, dependency claims):

• Read the cited files to confirm accuracy
• Flag any misrepresentations or hallucinated evidence
• Adjust verdict if verification changes the balance

---

Output

DEBATE: {topic}
==============

Thesis: {position A}
  Confidence: {high/medium/low}
  Key evidence: {1-2 strongest points with file refs}

Antithesis: {position B}
  Confidence: {high/medium/low}
  Key evidence: {1-2 strongest points with file refs}

Verdict: {position} wins because {reason}
Caveat: {position} would win if {conditions}

Verified claims: {N}/{M} checked, {K} corrected

---

Examples

/debating-ideas Should we split the API into microservices?
/debating-ideas Is it worth adding Redis caching to the auth flow?
/debating-ideas Monorepo vs polyrepo for our frontend packages

---

If the debate reaches no clear conclusion, present both positions with evidence and let the user decide.

Frame the debate now.