| 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
