Initial commit

commands/debate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+model: claude-sonnet-4-0
+allowed-tools: Task
+argument-hint: <proposition-or-claim> [intensity-level]
+description: Structured debate with opposing personas examining a proposition from multiple angles through productive disagreement
+---
+
+# Multi-Persona Debate Command
+
+Orchestrate structured debate around a proposition or claim, featuring opposing perspectives that challenge assumptions and explore alternatives through productive disagreement.
+
+## How It Works
+
+This command creates a debate-focused analysis where:
+1. Multiple personas examine the proposition critically
+2. Constructive critics challenge the mainstream view
+3. Alternative approaches are systematically generated
+4. Assumptions are tested through first-principles thinking
+5. Synthesis reveals robust insights from creative tension
+
+## Arguments
+
+**$1 (Required)**: Proposition, claim, or approach to debate
+
+**$2 (Optional)**: Level of challenging scrutiny
+- `balanced`: Respectful challenge with alternatives (default)
+- `rigorous`: Systematic assumption testing
+- `maximum`: Aggressive first-principles questioning
+
+## Examples
+
+### Balanced Debate
+```bash
+/debate "We should adopt microservices architecture"
+```
+Personas explore benefits, challenges, alternatives, and contexts where the proposition holds or fails.
+
+### Rigorous Scrutiny
+```bash
+/debate "TypeScript provides better developer experience than JavaScript" rigorous
+```
+Deep assumption testing, edge case exploration, systematic challenge of premises.
+
+### Maximum Challenge
+```bash
+/debate "Code review improves code quality" maximum
+```
+First-principles questioning, counterintuitive alternatives, paradigm-level examination.
+
+## Use Cases
+
+**Technology Decisions**
+- Debate framework choices
+- Challenge architectural assumptions
+- Evaluate tool adoption proposals
+
+**Best Practices**
+- Question conventional wisdom
+- Test methodology assumptions
+- Explore alternative approaches
+
+**Strategic Direction**
+- Challenge product roadmap decisions
+- Debate market positioning
+- Question resource allocation
+
+**Process & Culture**
+- Evaluate team practices
+- Challenge organizational assumptions
+- Explore alternative workflows
+
+## Debate Structure
+
+### Phase 1: Proposition Framing
+- Establish the claim or approach being examined
+- Clarify context and underlying assumptions
+
+### Phase 2: Supportive Analysis
+- Personas (Systems Architect, Analytical Thinker) examine merits
+- Identify contexts where proposition holds
+- Document supporting evidence and reasoning
+
+### Phase 3: Critical Challenge
+- Constructive Critic and Risk Analyst systematically challenge
+- Test assumptions through first-principles thinking
+- Generate alternative approaches
+
+### Phase 4: Alternative Exploration
+- Creative Innovator proposes unconventional alternatives
+- Pragmatic Realist assesses practical viability
+- Explore edge cases and boundary conditions
+
+### Phase 5: Synthesis
+- Coordinator integrates insights from debate
+- Clarify contexts where proposition works vs. fails
+- Provide nuanced recommendations
+
+## What You Get
+
+1. **Assumption Audit**: Systematic identification of hidden premises
+2. **Alternative Approaches**: Multiple options beyond the original proposition
+3. **Context Clarity**: Understanding when the proposition holds or fails
+4. **Robust Insights**: Solutions strengthened through critical examination
+5. **Nuanced Recommendations**: Avoiding false dichotomies and oversimplification
+
+## Split-Team Principles in Debate
+
+**Productive Disagreement**: Constructive challenge strengthens understanding
+
+**First-Principles Thinking**: Break assumptions down to fundamental truths
+
+**Alternative Generation**: Explore options beyond binary choices
+
+**Evidence-Based Challenge**: Ground disagreement in logic and data
+
+## Tips for Effective Debates
+
+1. **Frame Clearly**: State the proposition precisely
+2. **Provide Context**: Include relevant constraints and goals
+3. **Embrace Challenge**: Dissent reveals blind spots
+4. **Seek Nuance**: Avoid forcing binary yes/no conclusions
+5. **Value Alternatives**: Often the best solution emerges from synthesis
+
+## Example Session
+
+```bash
+/debate "We should prioritize velocity over code quality to meet market deadlines" rigorous
+```
+
+**Result**: Personas systematically challenge this false dichotomy, explore hidden assumptions (quality vs. velocity trade-off, technical debt impact), generate alternatives (quality-enabling speed, incremental quality), and synthesize nuanced guidance about when to optimize for speed vs. when quality accelerates delivery.
+
+## Debate Output Format
+
+```markdown
+## Debate: [Proposition]
+
+### Proposition Framing
+[Clear statement and context]
+
+### Supporting Analysis
+- [Supportive persona perspectives]
+- [Contexts where proposition holds]
+
+### Critical Challenge
+- [Systematic assumption testing]
+- [First-principles questioning]
+- [Alternative approaches]
+
+### Creative Alternatives
+- [Unconventional options]
+- [Edge case exploration]
+
+### Synthesis & Recommendations
+[Nuanced guidance integrating debate insights]
+[Context-dependent recommendations]
+[Acknowledged trade-offs]
+```
+
+Invoke the persona-coordinator agent with debate mode: $ARGUMENTS