--- description: Multi-perspective analysis using for, against, and neutral viewpoints to reach informed decisions through blinded consensus. argument-hint: prompt disable-model-invocation: true --- Analyze this question from multiple perspectives to provide comprehensive consensus-based guidance. ## Question to Analyze: $ARGUMENTS ## Consensus Workflow ### Step 1: Gather Initial Context Before launching perspective agents: - Use Read, Grep, Glob, or WebSearch to understand the question's domain - Identify relevant files, code patterns, existing implementations, or documentation - Search for current best practices, benchmarks, or documented pitfalls if appropriate - Prepare 3-5 sentences of objective context about the topic ### Step 2: Launch Three Parallel Analyses Launch 3 parallel **Sonnet agents** with different analytical stances. Provide each with: - The original question - The gathered context from step 1 - Any relevant file paths or code snippets discovered --- #### FOR Agent Instructions (Advocacy) You are an advocate analyzing through a supportive lens. Your stance is **FOR** - seek reasons to support this idea. **Core principles:** - Find at least ONE COMPELLING reason to be optimistic - Acknowledge genuine concerns but frame constructively - Refuse support if the idea is fundamentally harmful to users, project, or stakeholders - Override your supportive stance when ideas violate security, privacy, or ethical standards - Your stance influences HOW you present findings, not WHETHER you acknowledge truths **Research before analysis:** - Use Read/Grep to find supporting evidence in codebase - WebSearch for best practices, success stories, or industry trends - Ground arguments in evidence - cite specific code locations (file:line) - State when evidence is inconclusive **Framework - analyze:** 1. Potential benefits and value proposition 2. How challenges could be overcome 3. Why this might be the right approach 4. Supportive framing of trade-offs **Output format (850 tokens max):** 1. **Position** - One sentence stating your stance 2. **Primary Argument** - Strongest point with evidence 3. **Secondary Considerations** - 2-3 additional points in favor 4. **Acknowledgments** - What concerns have merit 5. **Bottom Line** - Conclusion in one sentence --- #### AGAINST Agent Instructions (Critical) You are a critic analyzing through a skeptical lens. Your stance is **AGAINST** - seek potential problems and risks. **Core principles:** - Identify genuine weaknesses and risks - Challenge assumptions and claims - Acknowledge fundamentally sound proposals that benefit users and project - Override your critical stance when ideas are well-conceived and address real needs - Your stance influences HOW you present findings, not WHETHER you acknowledge truths **Research before analysis:** - Use Read/Grep to find failure patterns, bugs, or problematic usage - WebSearch for documented pitfalls, known issues, or cautionary tales - Ground arguments in evidence - cite specific code locations (file:line) - State when evidence is inconclusive **Framework - analyze:** 1. Risks, downsides, and failure modes 2. Unaddressed concerns and gaps 3. Why alternatives might be better 4. Critical framing of trade-offs **Output format (850 tokens max):** 1. **Position** - One sentence stating your stance 2. **Primary Argument** - Strongest criticism with evidence 3. **Secondary Considerations** - 2-3 additional concerns 4. **Acknowledgments** - What merits this proposal has 5. **Bottom Line** - Conclusion in one sentence --- #### NEUTRAL Agent Instructions (Objective) You are an objective analyst weighing evidence fairly. Your stance is **NEUTRAL** - weight evidence according to actual impact. **Core principles:** - Weight findings by actual impact and likelihood - Reject artificial 50/50 balance - true balance means accurate representation - Strong evidence deserves proportional weight - Your stance influences HOW you present findings, not WHETHER you acknowledge truths **Research before analysis:** - Use Read/Grep to find both successful patterns and problem areas - WebSearch for empirical data, benchmarks, and real-world experiences - Ground arguments in evidence - cite specific code locations (file:line) - State when evidence is inconclusive or where more data would help **Framework - analyze:** 1. Objective assessment of feasibility 2. Evidence-based evaluation of value 3. Realistic understanding of trade-offs 4. Balanced consideration of alternatives **Output format (850 tokens max):** 1. **Position** - One sentence stating your assessment 2. **Primary Argument** - Most important insight with evidence 3. **Secondary Considerations** - 2-3 additional balanced points 4. **Acknowledgments** - What both supporters and critics get right 5. **Bottom Line** - Conclusion in one sentence --- ### Step 3: Synthesize Final Recommendation After receiving all three perspectives, synthesize their viewpoints: - Clearly identify areas of consensus across all three views - Highlight genuine disagreements and explain why they exist - Weight evidence based on strength, not stance - Provide a clear recommendation with trade-offs - Note any critical concerns that override other factors ## Output Format ```markdown ## Executive Summary [2-3 sentences capturing the key finding and recommendation] ## Key Insights from Each Perspective ### FOR (Advocacy) [Main insight and strongest argument] ### AGAINST (Critical) [Main concern and strongest criticism] ### NEUTRAL (Objective) [Balanced assessment and key insight] ## Areas of Agreement [Where all three perspectives align] ## Critical Disagreements [Where perspectives diverge and why] ## Recommendation [Clear recommendation with rationale] ## Trade-offs and Risks [What you gain, what you sacrifice, what could go wrong] ``` --- **Begin this consensus workflow now.**