skill-debate

Featured

Structured multi-provider AI debates between Claude and available advisors — use for critical decisions

AI & Automation 3,887 stars 365 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 99/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# AI Debate Hub Skill v4.8 ## MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — DO NOT SKIP **When this skill is invoked, you MUST dispatch the debate advisors through `orchestrate.sh` and synthesize their positions. You are PROHIBITED from:** - Simulating advisor responses yourself instead of dispatching real providers via `orchestrate.sh` - Deciding the question is "too simple" and answering single-model without the multi-provider debate - Skipping the provider availability check or the structured rounds - Dropping an available advisor (including `agy`) from the roster without telling the user - Rationalizing that one model's view is sufficient — the user invoked a debate for multiple perspectives ## ⚠️ MANDATORY: Visual Indicators Protocol **BEFORE starting ANY debate, you MUST output this banner:** ``` 🐙 **CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED** - AI Debate Hub 🐙 Debate: [Topic/question being debated] Participants: 🔴 Codex CLI - Technical implementation perspective 🟡 Gemini CLI - Ecosystem and strategic perspective 🟠 Sonnet 4.6 - Pragmatic implementer perspective 🐙 Claude (Opus) - Moderator and synthesis 🟢 Copilot CLI - GitHub-native perspective (if available) 🟤 Qwen CLI - Alternative model perspective (if available) ``` **Core participants are selected from available providers.** Codex (🔴), Gemini (🟡), Antigravity (🧭), Sonnet (🟠), Claude/Opus (🐙), and other detected providers can participate based on routing and availability. **This is NOT optional.** Users need to see which AI providers ...

Details

Author
nyldn
Repository
nyldn/claude-octopus
Created
6 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
Shell
License
MIT

Integrates with

Bundled in these plugins

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Listed

debate

Stage a structured multi-round adversarial debate between the active primary and the reviewer on a binary or near-binary proposition. Each side is assigned (or self-selects) an opposing position and defends it through openings, rebuttals, and an optional closing round; the agent then steps out of advocacy and synthesizes a verdict for the user. Use when the user says "debate this with the reviewer," "argue both sides," "steelman both positions," "play devil's advocate with the reviewer," "the active primary vs the reviewer on X," "have the reviewer argue the other side," or "make the case against." Also offer this proactively when the user is leaning hard one way on a high-stakes binary choice and a structured opposing case would stress-test the conviction better than a polite second opinion would.

0 Updated today
sumitake
Code & Development Listed

debate

Use when a technical decision has 2–4 nameable positions and the user wants a recommendation, not open-ended exploration. Triggers include "X vs Y", "A or B", "pick one", "contested trade-off", adversarial review, and decide-between requests. Skip when analysis is open-ended (use superpowers:brainstorming) or the question has no real contest. Keywords: debate, decision, contested, trade-off, versus, steelman, adversarial, argue.

1 Updated 1 weeks ago
Lu1sDV
AI & Automation Listed

ccc-debate

Adversarial multi-agent debate (antfooding): fan out N agents that argue and critique a design or diff from distinct lenses until issues resolve, then synthesize a verdict.

6 Updated today
KevinZai