192 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
192 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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.**
|