agent-debate

# agent-debate Run a bounded adversarial review of a consequential trade-off. Debate improves the evidence visible to a decision maker; it does not establish truth by vote and does not authorize implementation. ## Preconditions Use debate only when: - the positions are both plausible and materially different; - the decision is consequential enough to justify independent review; - the question can be falsified or informed by identifiable evidence; and - the current policy allows the required work. Do not debate a factual question that can be settled by direct verification, a minor naming preference, or a decision already made by an authorized human. ## Roles - Independent `reviewer` task packets argue named positions. - A `synthesizer` compares their evidence without external tool access unless the plan explicitly grants it. - The `primary-agent` records the recommendation and presents it to the human. - The human approves, declines, or requests revision. Provider and model names belong to host-adapter metadata, not the public debate contract. ## Workflow 1. Define the decision, alternatives, known facts, disputed assumptions, evidence standard, and human decision owner. 2. Evaluate policy before every reviewer spawn. Persist a required checkpoint before continuing. 3. Give each reviewer the same evidence packet plus one position to steel-man. Reviewers are argument-only and must not modify source files. 4. After each plan-act-reflect cycle, update the `Ta...