160 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
160 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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
|