convergence-debugger
Skill1 starsChanged 12 months agoMITView on GitHub
Expert debugging guide for AI Counsel's convergence detection system. Use when deliberations aren't converging as expected, early stopping fails, semantic similarity seems wrong, or voting vs semantic status conflicts occur.
- Installs packages
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 125
Consider installing optional dependencies:
- Distinctive: line 177
unanimous_consensus: - All models voted same option
- Distinctive: line 180
Semantic status: - Only used if no votes present:
- Very specific: line 198
Check that models are outputting exact VOTE: {json} format
- Distinctive: line 199
Verify JSON is valid (use online JSON validator)
- Very specific: line 200
Check logs for parsing errors: grep -i "vote\|parse" mcp_server.log
- Very specific: line 479
Check that models output valid VOTE: JSON with continue_debate field
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Convergence Detection Debugger
Overview
The AI Counsel convergence detection system (deliberation/convergence.py) determines when models have reached consensus and can stop deliberating early. It uses semantic similarity comparison between consecutive rounds, with voting outcomes taking precedence when available.
Common Issue: Convergence not detected → wasted API calls Common Issue: Early stopping not triggering → deliberation runs full max_rounds Common Issue: Semantic vs voting status conflict → confusing results
Diagnostic Workflow
Step 1: Examine the Transcript
What to look for:
- Are responses actually similar between rounds?
- Is there a "Convergence Information" section?
- What's the reported status and similarity scores?
- Are there votes? What's the voting outcome?
File location:
# Transcripts are in project root
ls -lt transcripts/*.md | head -5
# Open most recent
open "transcripts/$(ls -t transcripts/*.md | head -1)"Convergence section example:
## Convergence Information
- **Status**: refining (40.00% - 85.00% similarity)
- **Average Similarity**: 72.31%
- **Minimum Similarity**: 68.45%Voting section example (overrides semantic status):
## Final Voting Results
- **Winner**: TypeScript ✓
- **Status**: majority_decision
- **Tally**: TypeScript: 2, JavaScript: 1Missing convergence section?
→ Check if round_number <= min_rounds_before_check (see Step 2)
Step 2: Check Configuration
Read the config:
cat config.yamlKey settings to verify:
deliberation:
convergence_detection:
enabled: true # Must be true
semantic_similarity_threshold: 0.85 # Convergence if ALL participants >= this
divergence_threshold: 0.40 # Diverging if ANY participant < this
min_rounds_before_check: 1 # Must be <= (total_rounds - 1)
consecutive_stable_rounds: 2 # Require this many stable rounds
early_stopping:
enabled: true # Must be true for model-controlled stopping
threshold: 0.66 # Fraction of models that must want to stop (2/3)
respect_min_rounds: true # Won't stop before defaults.roundsCommon misconfigurations:
| Problem | Cause | Fix |
| No convergence info in transcript | min_rounds_before_check too high | For 2-round deliberation, use min_rounds_before_check: 1 |
| Early stopping never triggers | respect_min_rounds: true but models converge before defaults.rounds | Set to false or reduce defaults.rounds |
| Convergence threshold too strict | semantic_similarity_threshold: 0.95 | Lower to 0.80-0.85 for practical convergence |
| Everything marked "diverging" | divergence_threshold: 0.70 too high | Use default 0.40 (models rarely agree <40%) |
Step 3: Check Backend Selection
The system auto-selects the best available backend:
- SentenceTransformerBackend (best) - requires
sentence-transformers - TFIDFBackend (good) - requires
scikit-learn - JaccardBackend (fallback) - zero dependencies (word overlap)
Check what's installed:
python -c "import sentence_transformers; print('✓ SentenceTransformer available')" 2>/dev/null || echo "✗ SentenceTransformer not available"
python -c "import sklearn; print('✓ TF-IDF available')" 2>/dev/null || echo "✗ TF-IDF not available"Check what backend was used:
# Look at server logs
tail -50 mcp_server.log | grep -i "backend\|similarity"Expected log output:
INFO - ConvergenceDetector initialized with SentenceTransformerBackend
INFO - Using SentenceTransformerBackend (best accuracy)If using Jaccard (fallback):
- Similarity scores will be lower (word overlap only)
- Semantic paraphrasing NOT detected
- Consider installing optional dependencies:
# Install enhanced backends
pip install -r requirements-optional.txt
# Or individually
pip install sentence-transformers # Best
pip install scikit-learn # GoodStep 4: Debug Semantic Similarity Scores
Scenario: Responses look identical but similarity is low
Possible causes:
- Using Jaccard backend (doesn't understand semantics)
- Responses have different formatting/structure
- Models added different examples/details
Test similarity manually:
# Create test script: test_similarity.py
from deliberation.convergence import ConvergenceDetector
from models.config import load_config
config = load_config("config.yaml")
detector = ConvergenceDetector(config)
text1 = "I prefer TypeScript for type safety and better tooling"
text2 = "TypeScript is better because it has types and good IDE support"
score = detector.backend.compute_similarity(text1, text2)
print(f"Similarity: {score:.2%}")
print(f"Backend: {detector.backend.__class__.__name__}")Run it:
python test_similarity.pyExpected results by backend:
- SentenceTransformer: 75-85% (understands semantic similarity)
- TF-IDF: 50-65% (word importance weighting)
- Jaccard: 30-45% (simple word overlap)
Step 5: Debug Voting vs Semantic Status Conflicts
The voting outcome ALWAYS overrides semantic similarity status when votes are present.
Status precedence (highest to lowest):
- unanimous_consensus - All models voted same option
- majority_decision - 2+ models agreed (e.g., 2-1 vote)
- tie - Equal votes for all options (e.g., 1-1-1)
- Semantic status - Only used if no votes present:
converged- All participants ≥85% similarrefining- Between 40-85% similaritydiverging- Any participant <40% similarimpasse- Stable disagreement over multiple rounds
Check if votes are being parsed:
# Search transcript for VOTE markers
grep -A 5 "VOTE:" "transcripts/$(ls -t transcripts/*.md | head -1)"Expected vote format in model responses:
VOTE: {"option": "TypeScript", "confidence": 0.85, "rationale": "Type safety is crucial", "continue_debate": false}If votes aren't being parsed:
- Check that models are outputting exact
VOTE: {json}format - Verify JSON is valid (use online JSON validator)
- Check logs for parsing errors:
grep -i "vote\|parse" mcp_server.log
Step 6: Debug Early Stopping
Early stopping requires:
early_stopping.enabled: truein config- At least
thresholdfraction of models setcontinue_debate: false - Current round ≥
defaults.rounds(ifrespect_min_rounds: true)
Example: 3 models, threshold 0.66 (66%)
- Round 1: All say
continue_debate: true→ continues - Round 2: 2 models say
continue_debate: false→ stops (2/3 = 66.7%)
Debug steps:
- Check if enabled:
grep -A 3 "early_stopping:" config.yaml- Check model votes in transcript:
# Look for continue_debate flags
grep -i "continue_debate" "transcripts/$(ls -t transcripts/*.md | head -1)"- Check logs for early stop decision:
grep -i "early stop\|continue_debate" mcp_server.log | tail -20- Common issues:
| Problem | Cause | Solution |
| Models want to stop but deliberation continues | respect_min_rounds: true and not at min rounds yet | Wait for min rounds or set to false |
| Threshold not met | Only 1/3 models want to stop (33% < 66%) | Need 2/3 consensus |
| Not enabled | enabled: false | Set to true |
| Models not outputting flag | Vote JSON missing continue_debate field | Add to model prompts |
Step 7: Debug Impasse Detection
Impasse = stable disagreement over multiple rounds
Requirements:
- Status is
diverging(min_similarity < 0.40) consecutive_stable_roundsthreshold reached (default: 2)
Check impasse logic:
# Read convergence.py lines 380-385
# Impasse is only detected if diverging AND stableCommon issue: Never reaches impasse
- Models keep changing positions → not stable
- Divergence threshold too low → never marks as "diverging"
- Need at least 2-3 rounds of consistent disagreement
Manual check:
# Look at similarity scores across rounds
grep "Minimum Similarity" "transcripts/$(ls -t transcripts/*.md | head -1)"If similarity jumps around (45% → 25% → 60%): → Models aren't stable, impasse won't trigger
Step 8: Performance Diagnostics
If convergence detection is slow:
- Check if SentenceTransformer is downloading models:
# First run downloads ~500MB model
tail -f mcp_server.log | grep -i "loading\|download"- Model is cached after first load:
- Subsequent deliberations are instant (model reused from memory)
- Cache is per-process (each server restart reloads)
- Check computation time:
# Add timing to test script
import time
start = time.time()
score = detector.backend.compute_similarity(text1, text2)
elapsed = time.time() - start
print(f"Computation time: {elapsed*1000:.2f}ms")Expected times:
- SentenceTransformer: 50-200ms per comparison (first run slower)
- TF-IDF: 10-50ms per comparison
- Jaccard: <1ms per comparison
Quick Reference
Configuration Parameters
# Convergence thresholds
semantic_similarity_threshold: 0.85 # Range: 0.0-1.0, higher = stricter
divergence_threshold: 0.40 # Range: 0.0-1.0, lower = more sensitive
# Round constraints
min_rounds_before_check: 1 # Must be <= (total_rounds - 1)
consecutive_stable_rounds: 2 # Stability requirement
# Early stopping
early_stopping.threshold: 0.66 # Fraction of models needed (0.5 = majority)
respect_min_rounds: true # Honor defaults.rounds minimumStatus Definitions
| Status | Meaning | Similarity Range |
| converged | All participants agree | ≥85% (by default) |
| refining | Moderate agreement | 40-85% |
| diverging | Low agreement | <40% |
| impasse | Stable disagreement | <40% for 2+ rounds |
| unanimous_consensus | All voted same (overrides semantic) | N/A (voting) |
| majority_decision | 2+ voted same (overrides semantic) | N/A (voting) |
| tie | Equal votes (overrides semantic) | N/A (voting) |
Common Fixes
Problem: No convergence info in transcript
# Fix: Lower min_rounds_before_check
min_rounds_before_check: 1 # For 2-round deliberationsProblem: Never converges despite identical responses
# Fix: Install better backend
pip install sentence-transformersProblem: Early stopping not working
# Fix: Check these settings
early_stopping:
enabled: true
threshold: 0.66
respect_min_rounds: false # Allow stopping before min roundsProblem: Everything marked "diverging"
# Fix: Lower divergence threshold
divergence_threshold: 0.40 # Default (not 0.70)Files to Check
- Config:
/Users/harrison/Github/ai-counsel/config.yaml - Engine:
/Users/harrison/Github/ai-counsel/deliberation/convergence.py - Transcripts:
/Users/harrison/Github/ai-counsel/transcripts/*.md - Logs:
/Users/harrison/Github/ai-counsel/mcp_server.log - Schema:
/Users/harrison/Github/ai-counsel/models/schema.py(Vote models) - Config models:
/Users/harrison/Github/ai-counsel/models/config.py
Testing Convergence Detection
Create integration test:
# tests/integration/test_convergence_debug.py
import pytest
from deliberation.convergence import ConvergenceDetector
from models.config import load_config
from models.schema import RoundResponse, Participant
def test_convergence_identical_responses():
"""Test that identical responses trigger convergence."""
config = load_config("config.yaml")
detector = ConvergenceDetector(config)
# Create identical responses
round1 = [
RoundResponse(participant="claude", response="TypeScript is best", vote=None),
RoundResponse(participant="codex", response="TypeScript is best", vote=None),
]
round2 = [
RoundResponse(participant="claude", response="TypeScript is best", vote=None),
RoundResponse(participant="codex", response="TypeScript is best", vote=None),
]
result = detector.check_convergence(round2, round1, round_number=2)
assert result is not None, "Should check convergence at round 2"
assert result.avg_similarity > 0.90, f"Identical responses should be >90% similar, got {result.avg_similarity}"
print(f"Backend: {detector.backend.__class__.__name__}")
print(f"Similarity: {result.avg_similarity:.2%}")
print(f"Status: {result.status}")Run test:
pytest tests/integration/test_convergence_debug.py -v -sAdvanced Debugging
Enable Debug Logging
# Add to deliberation/engine.py or server.py
import logging
logging.basicConfig(level=logging.DEBUG)Inspect Backend State
# In Python shell or test
from deliberation.convergence import ConvergenceDetector
from models.config import load_config
config = load_config("config.yaml")
detector = ConvergenceDetector(config)
print(f"Backend: {detector.backend.__class__.__name__}")
print(f"Threshold: {detector.config.semantic_similarity_threshold}")
print(f"Min rounds: {detector.config.min_rounds_before_check}")
print(f"Consecutive stable: {detector.config.consecutive_stable_rounds}")Compare All Backends
# test_all_backends.py
from deliberation.convergence import (
JaccardBackend,
TFIDFBackend,
SentenceTransformerBackend
)
text1 = "I prefer TypeScript for type safety"
text2 = "TypeScript is better because it has types"
backends = {
"Jaccard": JaccardBackend(),
}
try:
backends["TF-IDF"] = TFIDFBackend()
except ImportError:
print("TF-IDF not available")
try:
backends["SentenceTransformer"] = SentenceTransformerBackend()
except ImportError:
print("SentenceTransformer not available")
for name, backend in backends.items():
score = backend.compute_similarity(text1, text2)
print(f"{name:20s}: {score:.2%}")Summary
Always check in order:
- ✅ Transcript - Does convergence info appear?
- ✅ Config - Are thresholds reasonable?
- ✅ Backend - Is the best backend installed?
- ✅ Voting - Are votes being parsed correctly?
- ✅ Early stopping - Is it enabled and configured correctly?
- ✅ Logs - Any errors or warnings?
Most common fixes:
- Lower
min_rounds_before_checkto 1 for short deliberations - Install
sentence-transformersfor better semantic detection - Set
early_stopping.respect_min_rounds: falsefor faster stopping - Lower
semantic_similarity_thresholdfrom 0.95 to 0.85 - Check that models output valid
VOTE:JSON withcontinue_debatefield
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adapter-factorySkill
- config-schema-migratorSkill
- decision-graph-analyzerSkill
- deliberation-testerSkill
- mcp-server-enhancementSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

