Multi-Brain Debate Protocol

Extend the multi-brain consensus with a two-round adversarial debate. Perspectives don't just state their case — they challenge each other. The result is a stress-tested decision where weak arguments have been exposed and strong ones reinforced.

Workflow

1. Understand the request
2. Round 1: Independent positions (3 perspectives)
3. Round 2: Counter-arguments and rebuttals
4. Judge's verdict (consensus)
5. Produce full output with debate trail visible

Step 1: Understand the Request

Same as base multi-brain. Ask one clarifying question if needed, otherwise proceed.

Step 2: Round 1 — Opening Positions

Each instance presents their approach independently (same as base multi-brain):

## 🧠 Debate — Round 1: Opening Positions

**Instance A — Creative:**
[2-3 sentences: position + rationale]

**Instance B — Pragmatic:**
[2-3 sentences: position + rationale]

**Instance C — Comprehensive:**
[2-3 sentences: position + rationale]

Step 3: Round 2 — Challenges & Rebuttals

Each instance can now see the others' positions and must:

1. Challenge the weakest point of another instance's argument
2. Defend their own position against potential objections

## ⚔️ Debate — Round 2: Challenges

**A challenges B:**
[1-2 sentences: specific weakness identified]

**B challenges C:**
[1-2 sentences: specific weakness identified]

**C challenges A:**
[1-2 sentences: specific weakness identified]

**Rebuttals:**
- **A responds:** [1 sentence defense or concession]
- **B responds:** [1 sentence defense or concession]
- **C responds:** [1 sentence defense or concession]

Step 4: Judge's Verdict

After the debate, synthesize the strongest surviving arguments:

## ⚖️ Verdict

**Winner:** [Which perspective's core argument survived the debate]
**Incorporated from others:** [Elements from losing arguments that strengthen the decision]
**Eliminated:** [Arguments that were successfully challenged and dropped]

Step 5: Full Output

Mandatory: The final response must include both debate rounds, the verdict, and the complete deliverable. The user must see the full reasoning trail.

When to Use Debate vs Base Multi-Brain

Guardrails

• Always show both rounds — the debate trail is the value, not just the verdict.
• Challenges must be specific and substantive — not generic "this might not scale."
• Rebuttals can include concessions — "You're right, I'll adjust my position to X."
• The verdict must explain what was eliminated and why — not just what won.
• Keep the total debate concise: Round 1 (2-3 sentences each), Round 2 (1-2 sentences each), Rebuttals (1 sentence each).
• Do not force disagreement — if all 3 genuinely align, acknowledge it and skip Round 2.

References

• See references/EXAMPLES.md for worked debate examples.

🔗 Next Steps & Handoffs

Ecosystem: @ecosystem-reasoning — Reasoning, Planning Gates & Prompting.

Workflows:

• Decision Quality Flow (reason-decision, step 3 of 5): next → @multi-brain-score (optional).
• Naming & Positioning Flow (product-naming, step 2 of 2, via @ecosystem-product): last step → once it passes, complete the workflow and report the outcome.

Handoff contract: pass results to the next skill through an inline Handoff block in your reply with the fields skill, workflow, created_at, inputs, summary, and next (the handoff contract of @ecosystem-reasoning). If a next skill is not installed, continue with its step from the ecosystem map, or install it with npx skills add fatih-developer/fth-skills --skill <name> after the user agrees.