dialectic

name	dialectic
description	Prove and counter-prove a statement using parallel agents to eliminate confirmation bias. Use when someone says "dialectic", "prove/disprove", "stress test this claim", "is this really true", "argue both sides", or when a statement needs objective analysis from opposing viewpoints.
argument-hint	<statement to analyze>
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, Task, AskUserQuestion

Dialectic Analysis

Objective analysis of a statement by running two agents with opposing goals in parallel, then synthesizing findings.

Process

Step 1: Launch Parallel Agents

CRITICAL: Both Task tool calls MUST be in a single message for true parallel execution. Do NOT use run_in_background. Do NOT launch sequentially. Foreground agents in the same message run in parallel and block until both complete.

Agent 1 (Thesis) — find all POSITIVE evidence:

• what works well, improvements, correct patterns
• supporting facts, proof the statement is TRUE
• benefits, strengths, successful outcomes

Agent 2 (Antithesis) — find all NEGATIVE evidence:

• what's problematic, issues, risks, anti-patterns
• edge cases, proof the statement is FALSE
• weaknesses, failure modes, hidden costs

Both agents must provide specific file paths and line numbers when analyzing code.

Step 2: Synthesize

After both agents complete, synthesize findings into an objective conclusion:

• weigh evidence from both sides
• identify where thesis and antithesis agree (strongest signal)
• note unresolved tensions

Step 3: Verify

CRITICAL — after presenting the synthesis, verify it against actual implementation:

• read the specific files and line numbers referenced by both agents
• confirm the evidence cited actually exists in the codebase
• check the implementation flow matches the claims made
• verify the synthesis accurately reflects the actual code context
• identify any misinterpretations or missing context from agent reports
• revise synthesis if verification reveals inaccuracies

Use Cases

Architecture decisions:

/thinking-tools:dialectic this microservice split improves maintainability

Bug analysis:

/thinking-tools:dialectic the connection pool fixes the timeout issue

Performance claims:

/thinking-tools:dialectic caching reduced database load by 80%

Refactoring safety:

/thinking-tools:dialectic extracting this interface simplifies testing

Code review:

/thinking-tools:dialectic this implementation is thread-safe

Review changes:

/thinking-tools:dialectic review the changes in server.go

Key Principles

• Eliminate confirmation bias — examining both sides simultaneously prevents anchoring on the first conclusion
• Evidence-based — agents must cite specific files, lines, and facts, not general claims
• Verification required — synthesis must be checked against actual code before presenting
• Objective conclusion — the goal is truth, not winning either side