debate-agents
Skill14 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Resolve a consequential decision by developing genuinely independent, credible positions and choosing between them with explicit criteria. Use when a question has two or more defensible answers, when evidence is ambiguous or contested, or when a single position risks sycophantic or premature consensus. Not for ordinary drafting or format choices.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- brief-creativeSkill
- brief-product-uiSkill
- conquistadorSkill
- create-brandSkill
- create-paid-campaignSkill
- create-shortformSkill
- improve-conversionSkill
- knowledge-reviewSkill
- map-user-flowSkill
- measure-growthSkill
- model-growth-funnelSkill
- optimize-searchSkill
- plan-campaignSkill
- polish-vietnameseSkill
- research-channelSkill
- research-positioningSkill
- write-copySkill
- write-longformSkill
- write-outreachSkill
- write-socialSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 21
Create at least two positions that start from different first principles rather than echoing the drafting bias or the user's preference.
- Distinctive: line 46
If criteria and current evidence genuinely cannot separate the positions, say so plainly instead of manufacturing consensus.
- Distinctive: line 53
Keep agents, votes, and internal reasoning private.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 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
Debate agents
Turn a consequential decision into independent positions, direct disagreement, and an honest choice.
Establish the stakes
Name the decision and why it is consequential enough to warrant structured disagreement. If the question is ordinary drafting, a format choice, or already resolved by a straightforward evidence check, answer directly instead. Never stage a panel as visible process.
Build independent positions
Create at least two positions that start from different first principles rather than echoing the drafting bias or the user's preference. Each position must independently defend:
- premise: the claim that must be true for it to win;
- evidence: observed support and where it comes from;
- upside and downside;
- risk and what would go wrong;
- disconfirming condition: the smallest fact that would break the position.
Make them disagree
Confront each position with the strongest version of the others. Attack the weakest link of each position, not a straw man. When the briefing or user already favors one side, explicitly test the opposite. Guard against sycophancy: agreement is not correctness, and a position is not true because it flatters the request or repeats prior drafting.
Resolve with explicit criteria
State the decision criteria before choosing—for example reversibility, downside severity, evidence strength, or fit to the user's values. A single resolver applies the criteria and chooses; it must not average the positions or split the difference. Return the chosen position, the criteria used, and the evidence that would reverse the choice.
Honest deadlock
If criteria and current evidence genuinely cannot separate the positions, say so plainly instead of manufacturing consensus. Name the smallest test, fact, or source that would break the tie. If the decision cannot wait, give the best bounded choice with the assumption explicitly labeled.
Optional panel only when consequential
Offer a multi-agent panel only when the uncertainty is consequential and the host supports subagents. Keep agents, votes, and internal reasoning private; return the decision and its reversal condition. A capable single-agent application of this method remains the fallback in every host.
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.

