plan-debate
Skill17 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use to run a multi-round cross-model debate on an implementation plan — Claude drafts, Codex critiques against the real codebase, Claude rebuts and synthesizes, optional second Codex pass — converging on a stronger plan. Combines codex-review-plan and review-codex-plan. Trigger phrases include "debate this plan with Codex", "go back and forth with Codex on the plan", "have Claude and Codex argue out the plan".
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- almax000/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 19, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- almax000/claude-skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- codex-bridgeSkill
- codex-review-planSkill
- overleafSkill
- power-firstSkill
- referee-panelSkill
- refresh-pipelineSkill
- review-codex-planSkill
- robustness-batterySkill
- spec-curve-sweepSkill
- stata-preflightSkill
- sync-overleafSkill
- tableSkill
- verify-claimsSkill
- verify-numbers-pipelineSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 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.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Run a short, converging debate between Claude and Codex on a plan.
- Very specific: line 18
Ensure a plan exists: If there's an active ~/.claude/plans/ file or a plan the user supplied, use it.
- Very specific: line 22
Round 1 — Codex critiques: Run the codex-review-plan flow: send the plan to Codex (read-only, in the project dir), get its critique.
- Distinctive: line 36
Write the final converged plan to the plan file.
- Distinctive: line 47
Keep chat output terse; full reviews stay in their temp files.
≈ “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
plan-debate (Claude ⇄ Codex, round-trip)
Run a short, converging debate between Claude and Codex on a plan. The goal is a single stronger plan plus an honest record of where the two models still disagree.
Mechanics (wrapper, templates, timeout, output rules) live in the
codex-bridge skill. This skill orchestrates codex-review-plan (Claude →
Codex) and review-codex-plan (Codex → Claude) — read all three first.
Workflow
- Ensure a plan exists. If there's an active
~/.claude/plans/file or a plan the user supplied, use it. If not, draft one first viasuperpowers:writing-plans. - Round 1 — Codex critiques. Run the
codex-review-planflow: send the plan to Codex (read-only, in the project dir), get its critique. Then synthesize a revised plan as Claude, incorporating accepted points viasuperpowers:receiving-code-review(verify each point; push back with reasons on wrong ones). - Round 2 (optional) — focused re-review. Send the revised plan back to Codex with a focused prompt: "Were the following issues addressed? What gaps remain?" (list the round-1 issues). Synthesize again.
- Stop condition. End when Codex raises no new substantive issue, or after N rounds (default 2) — whichever comes first. Don't loop indefinitely.
- Output.
- Write the final converged plan to the plan file.
- Give a short per-round changelog (≤10 lines): what each round changed.
- Surface unresolved disagreements between Claude and Codex explicitly — state each side's position and your recommendation. Do not bury them.
- Note the temp paths holding each round's full Codex output.
Notes
- Each Codex call uses a long Bash timeout (~600000 ms); high effort is slow. For a
faster debate, append
-c model_reasoning_effort=highto the wrapper calls. - Codex runs read-only throughout — it cannot modify your files.
- Keep chat output terse; full reviews stay in their temp files.
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.