debate

# Debate Review Orchestrate a structured deliberation between reviewer agents. Reviewers don't just give feedback in parallel—they engage with each other's perspectives, challenge each other's recommendations, and work toward resolution (or acknowledged stalemate). ## When to Use /debate vs /panel | Use | When | |-----|------| | `/panel` | You want multiple perspectives synthesized. Fast. Tensions surfaced for you to decide. | | `/debate` | You want reviewers to actually argue it out. More thorough. Tensions may resolve through deliberation. | **Choose /debate when:** - The piece is high-stakes and worth the extra rounds - You want to see how perspectives hold up under challenge - You suspect some tensions might resolve if reviewers engaged each other - You want proposals and compromises, not just "you decide" **Choose /panel when:** - You want comprehensive feedback quickly - You're comfortable resolving tensions yourself - Time/tokens are a concern ## The Deliberation Flow ### Round 1: Initial Positions Same as /panel—all reviewers analyze the draft independently. ### Round 2: Challenges The moderator identifies tensions and sends challenges to involved reviewers: ``` ## Challenge: The fishing gear paragraph **The passage:** > "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s..." **hemingway said:** > "47 words that could be 15. Cut it." **sedaris said:** > "This is the most alive moment in the piece. Keep every word." --- **hemingway:** sedaris argues the specificity earns its place. How do you respond? **sedaris:** hemingway argues this slows momentum. How do you respond? ``` ### Round 3: Responses Reviewers respond in character. They may: - **Concede** — "On reflection, the detail does earn its place. I withdraw." - **Hold** — "The momentum problem remains. Even good details hurt here." - **Propose** — "Keep the first image, cut the extended list. Satisfies both." ### Round 4: Resolution For each tension: - **Resolved** — Reviewers agree (via concession or proposal) - **Stalemate** — Reviewers hold, fundamental value difference - **Proposal on table** — Compromise offered, writer decides The moderator may run additional rounds if proposals generate new discussion, but caps at 4 rounds. ## The Flow in Practice ### 1. Load Context Read the draft and .status.yaml: - piece_type - audience - stage - goals ### 2. Propose Panel Same as /panel—propose 4-6 reviewers based on context. ``` ## Proposed Panel for Debate **Draft:** [title] **Context:** [piece_type] for [audience], [stage] | Reviewer | Why | |----------|-----| | **[name]** | [Rationale] | | **[name]** | [Rationale] | **Note:** Debate works best with reviewers who have natural tensions. Consider including pairs like: - hemingway + sedaris (economy vs. specificity) - mom + hitchcock (clarity vs. mystery) - sorkin + vonnegut (speed vs. depth) Proceed with this panel, or adjust? ``` Wait for user confirmation. ### 3. Round 1: Run Reviewers Spawn all reviewers in parallel. Collect outputs. ### 4. Round 2: Identify Tensions and Generate Challenges Analyze outputs for conflicts. For each significant tension: - Quote the passage - Present both positions - Generate challenge prompts Spawn challenged reviewers with the challenge context. ### 5. Round 3: Collect Responses Each reviewer responds to their challenge: - Concede, Hold, or Propose - With reasoning ### 6. Round 4: Resolution and Additional Rounds Determine resolution status. If proposals warrant further discussion, run another round (max 4 total). ### 7. Final Synthesis Return the debate-moderator's synthesis: - Resolved tensions (with how they resolved) - Stalemates (with final positions and stakes) - Proposals (compromise options) - Consensus findings (non-debated) - The hard question ## Panel Selection for Debate Debate is most valuable when the panel includes natural tensions: | Pairing | Tension Type | Good For | |---------|--------------|----------| | hemingway + sedaris | Economy vs. Specificity | Deciding what earns its length | | mom + hitchcock | Clarity vs. Mystery | Balancing accessibility and tension | | mom + hemingway | Context vs. Brevity | What explanation is necessary | | sorkin + sedaris | Momentum vs. Observation | Pacing of descriptive passages | | sorkin + vonnegut | Speed vs. Depth | When to slow for character | | asshole + sedaris | Rigor vs. Voice | Tone of argument pieces | **Recommendation:** Include at least one natural tension pair in your panel. ## Example Session ``` User: /debate Agent: I'll run a deliberation on your draft. Let me read it and propose a panel. [Reads draft] [Reads .status.yaml: piece_type: essay, audience: general, stage: revision] ## Proposed Panel for Debate **Draft:** father-and-the-sea **Context:** personal essay for general audience, revision stage | Reviewer | Why | |----------|-----| | **hemingway** | Check economy—personal essays can get overwritten | | **sedaris** | Find the specific, human, funny moments | | **sorkin** | Verify pacing through emotional beats | | **mom** | General audience accessibility check | **Natural tensions:** hemingway/sedaris (economy vs. specificity), sorkin/sedaris (momentum vs. observation) Proceed with this panel, or adjust? User: yes Agent: Running Round 1—each reviewer analyzing independently. [Spawns 4 reviewers in parallel] [Collects outputs] Round 1 complete. Analyzing for tensions. ## Tensions Identified ### Tension 1: The tackle box paragraph **hemingway** wants to cut; **sedaris** wants to keep every word. ### Tension 2: Section 3 pacing **sorkin** says it stalls; **sedaris** says the observation is the point. ### Tension 3: Ending explanation **mom** wants more; **sorkin** says trust the reader. Proceeding to Round 2 with 3 challenges. [Spawns challenged reviewers with challenge context] [Collects responses] ## Round 2 Responses **Tension 1:** - hemingway: HOLD — "Momentum matters more than any single detail." - sedaris: PROPOSE — "Keep 'museum of failures' and the pug. Cut the Reagan line." **Tension 2:** - sorkin: CONCEDE — "If the observation is the point, I was wrong to call it a stall." - sedaris: (no concession needed) **Tension 3:** - mom: HOLD — "I still don't know what he learned. That's a real gap." - sorkin: PROPOSE — "One specific image of the lesson. Not explanation—scene." Proceeding to final synthesis. ## Debate Synthesis **Panel:** hemingway, sedaris, sorkin, mom **Rounds:** 2 **Context:** personal essay for general audience, revision stage --- ### Resolved Tensions **Section 3 pacing** > [The observation passage] **Resolution:** Sorkin conceded. The slow pace is intentional and earns its place. **Recommendation:** Keep as-is. The observation is the point. --- ### Stalemates *None—all tensions reached resolution or proposal.* --- ### Proposals **The tackle box paragraph** > "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s, > a reel that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught > anything but his own thumb." **Proposed revision:** "His tackle box was a museum of failures—hooks that had never caught anything but his own thumb." **Proposed by:** sedaris (compromise with hemingway) **Would satisfy:** Keeps the voice and "museum" metaphor, cuts the catalog **Trade-off:** Loses the temporal sweep ("'70s," "Reagan") --- **The ending** **Proposed revision:** Add one concrete image showing what you learned, rather than explaining it. **Proposed by:** sorkin (compromise with mom) **Would satisfy:** Mom gets clarity; sorkin keeps momentum **Trade-off:** Requires writing new material --- ### Consensus Findings | Issue | Flagged By | Recommendation | |-------|------------|----------------| | Opening is slow | hemingway, sorkin | Start on the boat | | "He taught me everything" unearned | all | Show, don't declare | --- ### The Deliberation Summary **Resolved:** 1 tension resolved through concession **Stalemates:** 0 **Proposals:** 2 compromise options for your consideration --- ### The Hard Question > The debate kept circling one thing: you're telling us the relationship > mattered without showing us what made it irreplaceable. The ending > proposal addresses this—but only if you write a scene that earns it. ``` ## Token Economics Debate is more expensive than panel: | Phase | Approximate Tokens | |-------|-------------------| | Round 1: Initial reviews | 4-6 reviewers × ~8K = 32-48K | | Round 2: Challenges | 3-4 tensions × 2 reviewers × ~4K = 24-32K | | Round 3: Responses | Same reviewers × ~3K = 18-24K | | Round 4: Resolution (if needed) | ~10K | | Synthesis | ~8K | | **Total** | ~90-120K tokens | For high-stakes pieces, worth it. For routine editing, use /panel. ## Error Handling **If a reviewer fails to spawn:** - Note the gap - Proceed with available reviewers - Tensions involving that reviewer won't be debated **If no tensions identified:** - Skip to synthesis - Report as "No significant tensions—reviewers largely aligned" **If a reviewer doesn't respond to challenge:** - Treat as implicit HOLD - Note non-response in synthesis **If debate goes circular:** - Moderator calls stalemate after positions repeat - Cap at 4 rounds regardless ## Relationship to /panel `/panel` and `/debate` share infrastructure: - Same reviewer agents - Same context loading from .status.yaml - Same panel proposal logic The difference: - `/panel` → synthesizer (one pass, tensions surfaced) - `/debate` → moderator (multiple rounds, tensions engaged) A natural workflow: run `/panel` first for quick feedback, then `/debate` on specific tensions if you want them argued out. ## Lessons [Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]