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. Gate. Read deliberations from contextkit/config.json (fall back to runtime/config/defaults.mjs). If active is false, stop and say so. The minLevel gate only governs the automatic nudge — an explicit /debate always runs when active. (Auto-invocation from /workflow, /new-adr and /ship resolves through the autonomy areas feature-deliberation / decision-deliberation / ship-checkpoint — debate mode at grade ≥ 3, ADR-0070.)

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 model (Opus/reasoning — voices are NEVER downgraded, ADR-0052) 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 nothing without consent — the ADR write is a floor area (manual at every grade, ADR-0042/0070), even when the deliberation was auto-invoked.
   • 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 generate its backlog with adr-tasks.mjs <NNNN> --write per [ADR-0034].
   • 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.