Menu
Compare 2+ options with a dedicated advocate for each, counter-advocates who challenge every position, and a referee who ranks what survives.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
| name | tradeoff |
| description | Compare 2+ options with a dedicated advocate for each, counter-advocates who challenge every position, and a referee who ranks what survives. |
Run /dialectic-review --tradeoff $ARGUMENTS
Read ~/.claude/skills/dialectic-review/SKILL.md for argument parsing, then read ~/.claude/skills/dialectic-review/tradeoff-prompts.md for the phase prompts. Follow the full three-phase process defined there. Any /dialectic-review flag is valid here — it passes straight through.
Generate a wide field of ideas, then pressure-test them. Five generators diverge, two challengers prune the weak ones, three synthesizers rank what survives.
Three-agent adversarial bug finder. Hunter overclaims every issue it can find, Skeptic disproves what it can, Referee arbitrates what survives. Scoring incentives force each role to behave honestly.
Dialectic process for reviewing, brainstorming, comparing tradeoffs, or stress-testing plans. Configurable modes, agent counts, and expert lenses.
Execute a pre-defined plan using implementation agents (no design changes)
Capture structured learnings (gotcha, pattern, decision, bug-fix) as JSONL per project. Cross-project searchable.
Assume the plan failed — then explain why. Three pessimists write failure narratives, two optimists rebut, a risk assessor weighs which failure modes are real.
