source-command-debate

name	source-command-debate
description	Open a multi-agent deliberation — a council of specialist voices debate a hard question with tiered research, a synthesizer converges, the result feeds an ADR. (ADR-0035 / ADR-0070)

source-command-debate

Use this skill when the user asks to run the migrated source command debate.

Command Template

Run a deliberation on: $ARGUMENTS

A deliberation is PRE-DECISION working material (ADR-0035): a council of genuinely independent SPECIALIST voices argues a hard question, a separate synthesizer converges, and the result feeds an ADR's Context. It is NOT the canonical record of the why — the ADR is. This is a strategic, intelligent debate, not an essay.

0. Conditional requirement. An explicit /debate always runs. A governed needsDebate: true classification or a debate requirement in the selected workflow/skill also requires the council before the affected material decision is finalized. Outside those triggers, deliberations config may control optional suggestions. Routing output recommends the model; it never authorizes the council or turns legacy receipt fields into prerequisites.

1. Frame the question. Restate $ARGUMENTS as a single decision question with just enough context for an independent reader to take a side. If it's too vague to debate (no real tension, or several questions tangled), ask one clarifying question before spending agent calls.

2. Plan the council. Run node contextkit/tools/scripts/deliberation-council.mjs plan --question "<the question>" --json. It returns the specialist roster (relevant advisor-lane owners — e.g. architect, security, ux-designer — scaled council.min..max by the question, ADR-0070) and the tiered research plan (scout / verify / voice models). Use this roster instead of anonymous "Voice A/B/C". If autoSelect is off, the plan returns N generic positions — fall back to the legacy flat debate.

3. Gather evidence (cheap scouts). If research.tiered, FIRST run node contextkit/tools/scripts/context-pack.mjs --for-subagent --objective "<the question>" for the bounded boot pack (ADR-0044 D1). Then dispatch scout sub-agents at the research.scouts model (Haiku/fast) IN PARALLEL — one per concrete fact the debate needs (existing patterns, current behaviour, a config value, a prior ADR). Each scout reads at most a couple of files and returns one verifiable fact with its source (file:line / command output). Collect these into an evidence pack. The point is economy: the reasoning voices spend premium tokens on judgment, not lookups. Skip only when the question is purely abstract.

4. Fan out to the council (reasoning voices). Dispatch one sub-agent per council member with the Task tool, IN PARALLEL, each at the research.voices recommended voice model when available. Missing or incompatible routing output does not block the council or make the requirement disappear; use the current agent/model and blind to the others' arguments — independence is the whole point (ADR-0035). Embed the context-pack + the evidence pack at the top of every voice prompt. Each voice argues from its specialist lens (the agent/lane from the plan), takes ONE distinct position on a genuinely different axis (correctness vs. cost vs. reversibility/blast-radius vs. UX vs. security), and returns its strongest one-paragraph case + the trade-off it accepts. CONCISE, OBJECTIVE, HIGHLY TECHNICAL.

5. Verify the hard claims (powerful tier, optional). If a position rests on a claim that needs checking in a larger context than a scout can hold, dispatch a verifier at the research.verify model (Sonnet/powerful) to confirm or refute it. Fold the verdict into the synthesis — never let an unverified claim decide.

6. Synthesize (you, not the voices). You are the orchestrator (reasoning tier) — you argued no position, so you declare the outcome. Weigh the cases: which wins on which axis, what each loser contributes, the decisive trade-off. Then either:

   • Consensus → a clear verdict, OR
   • unresolved → record the positions + the unresolved tension as the trade-off the human must break. A VALID outcome, not a failure. Do not manufacture agreement to look decisive.

7. Write the artifact. Copy contextkit/memory/deliberations/_TEMPLATE.md to contextkit/memory/deliberations/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<NN>-<kebab-slug>.md (NN = highest existing + 1, zero-padded; start at 01). Fill Question / Evidence / Positions (one ### <agent> — <label> per council member) / Synthesis / Verdict; set Trigger, Council (roster + count) and Status: resolved | unresolved. Then refresh the index: node contextkit/tools/scripts/deliberations-reindex.mjs.

8. Feed an ADR.

   • If unresolved: offer NO ADR — the tension is the deliverable. Suggest the human break it or re-run /debate with more context.
   • If resolved (default, dry-run): assemble a PRE-FILLED /new-adr draft (Context = the Synthesis, Decision = the Verdict, Consequences = the trade-offs raised) and present it for approval. Write only when the current instruction or an explicit --approve authorizes that mutation.
   • If invoked with --approve (the opt-in apply path): create the ADR in sequence — node contextkit/tools/scripts/adr-digest.mjs --search for duplicates first, then write the next ADR, then preview its implied work with adr-tasks.mjs <NNNN> --json per [ADR-0034]. Add accepted work only to an explicit scoped tasks.json through pipeline.mjs add --tasks <scope>.
   • Either way, link the ADR back to this debate via [[deliberation: <slug>]] in its Context, and set the deliberation's Feeds: to the ADR id.

Keep the whole exchange tight — a deliberation is a fast, technical convergence, not an essay. The value is the independent specialist disagreement, not the word count.