debate-team

name

debate-team

description

Spin up a team of distinct AI personas that argue a topic via native inter-agent messaging, then deliver a moderated synthesis. Use when the user wants to debate, stress-test, pressure-test, red-team, or get a roundtable/panel on a decision, idea, plan, or product — e.g. "have customers debate this product", "engineers debate this stack/architecture", "stakeholders argue this strategy", "play devil's advocate from multiple angles", "run a panel on X". Auto-casts the roster from the topic; works for any domain.

Debate Team

Convene a team of independent AI agents — each a distinct persona with its own incentives, worldview, risk tolerance, and voice — and have them genuinely argue a topic using native agent-to-agent messaging. You act as moderator: you cast the panel, run the rounds, keep it honest, and finish with a synthesis.

Core principle: real disagreement, not theater. Personas must have structurally opposed interests, not cosmetic differences. A debate where everyone converges politely is a failure. Cast for friction, reward the strongest version of each side, and never let a persona strawman another.

---

0. When this runs

Trigger on any request to debate / argue / stress-test / pressure-test / red-team / "have X and Y discuss" / panel / roundtable / "poke holes" / "what would a skeptic say" applied to a topic, decision, product, plan, or stack choice.

If the topic is a single sentence and ambiguous about what's being decided, ask one tight clarifying question before casting (e.g. "Debate which — whether to build it at all, or which of two options?"). Otherwise proceed; do not over-interrogate.

---

1. Frame the debate

Determine before casting:

• Debate type — pick the closest:
  • Decision ("React vs Svelte", "build vs buy") → personas hold rival options.
  • Evaluation ("is this product any good", "critique this pitch") → personas are different consumers/stakeholders reacting.
  • Adversarial / red-team ("find the holes in this plan") → personas attack from distinct threat angles + one defender.
  • Exploratory ("what are the angles on X") → personas represent different schools of thought.
• The motion — restate the topic as one crisp question or proposition everyone debates. Show it to the user.
• Stakes & lens — whose decision is this, what does "winning the argument" optimize for (cost? risk? user love? speed?).

---

2. Auto-cast the roster

Infer the panel from the topic. Rules:

• 2–5 personas. Default 3–4. Use 2 for a clean head-to-head; 5 only for rich multi-stakeholder topics. More than 5 = noise.
• Each persona needs opposed incentives, not just a different label. Ask: "what would make THIS persona furious / delighted that the others wouldn't care about?"
• Always include a genuine skeptic / contrarian — someone whose job is to find what breaks.
• Distinct voice per persona: terse vs verbose, data-driven vs gut-driven, optimist vs cynic, big-picture vs detail-obsessed. Personality is part of the cast, not flavor text.
• Ground them. Give each a name, a one-line identity, their core motive, what they fear, and a speaking style.
• If the user named personas, use theirs verbatim and only fill gaps.

Casting examples (adapt, don't copy literally):

Topic	Sample roster
Pick a web stack	Pragmatic senior dev (ships, hates churn) · Startup CTO (velocity > purity) · SRE (who pages at 3am?) · Hype-skeptic ("we said the same about the last framework")
Is this SaaS product good	Power user (wants depth) · Non-technical buyer (wants it to "just work") · Procurement/budget owner (ROI, lock-in) · Competitor's happy customer (switching cost)
Should we raise prices	Growth lead (LTV) · Existing-customer advocate (churn risk) · CFO (margin) · Sales rep (deals in pipeline)
Red-team this launch plan	Security/abuse angle · Scale/load angle · Legal/PR angle · The defender (plan's author)

See references/casting-library.md for more archetypes and anti-patterns.

Present the cast to the user in one or two lines each, then proceed (don't wait for approval unless they asked to review casting).

---

3. Stand up the team

Use the native team primitives so personas can message each other directly.

1. TeamCreate — team_name like debate-<short-topic-slug>, description = the motion. You are the moderator/team-lead.
2. Spawn each persona with the Agent tool, passing team_name and a name (the persona's name, kebab/lower e.g. senior-dev, the-skeptic). Use subagent_type: "general-purpose" (or claude) so they can reason and search freely — personas don't need file-editing tools but benefit from web/research access for factual debates.
3. Each persona's spawn prompt is its character brief — see template below. Spawn them in the same message (parallel) so they're all live.

Persona brief template (fill per persona):

You are {NAME}, taking part in a moderated debate. Stay in character the whole time.

IDENTITY: {one-line who they are}
CORE MOTIVE: {what they're optimizing for — the thing they will not compromise}
WHAT YOU FEAR: {the failure mode that makes this persona argue hardest}
VOICE: {speaking style — e.g. "terse, blunt, cites numbers; no hedging"}

THE MOTION: {the crisp question/proposition}
YOUR STANCE: {their starting position, or "form one from your motive" for evaluation debates}

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT:
- Argue the STRONGEST version of your position. No strawmanning others — engage their best point.
- You may message other panelists BY NAME via SendMessage to rebut or press them directly when invited to.
- Concede a point when it's genuinely won against you — credibility matters more than winning every exchange.
- Be specific: examples, numbers, scenarios > vague assertions.
- When the moderator asks for your turn, respond to the moderator AND name who you're rebutting.
- Keep each turn tight (≈150 words unless asked to go deep).

The moderator ({your role}) will run the rounds. Wait for prompts; don't flood the channel.

If team/Agent spawning is unavailable in this environment, fall back to single-context simulation: role-play every persona yourself in a clearly-labeled back-and-forth using the same rounds below. Note the fallback to the user in one line.

---

4. Run the rounds

You (moderator) drive turn order via SendMessage. Keep a running transcript. Default arc:

1. Opening positions — message each persona in turn for their opening statement on the motion. Collect.
2. Clash (1–3 rounds) — feed each persona the others' key points; ask them to rebut the strongest one. Invite direct exchanges: when two personas sharply disagree, tell them to debate each other directly via SendMessage for 1–2 volleys, then report back. This is where native messaging earns its keep.
3. Pressure test — pose the hardest question to whoever's position is weakest; make the skeptic attack the front-runner.
4. Closing — each persona's final position in 1–2 sentences, including anything they conceded.

Scale rounds to the ask: a quick "have them argue X" = opening + one clash + closing. "Thoroughly stress-test" = more clash rounds, more direct exchanges, a dedicated red-team round.

Moderator discipline:

• Don't let it converge prematurely or collapse into agreement — if it does, inject a sharper counter-question.
• Don't let one persona dominate; pull in quiet ones.
• Cut loops: if two personas restate the same point, move on.
• Stay neutral during the debate. Your opinion comes only in synthesis.

---

5. Output: transcript + synthesis

Two parts:

A. Transcript. Show the debate. If it's bulky (long turns, many rounds), summarize each round to its essential moves — who argued what, key rebuttals, concessions — rather than dumping every word. Keep direct quotes only for the sharpest or most decisive lines. If it's short, show it closer to verbatim. Label speakers clearly.

B. Synthesis (always, as the moderator):

• Key tensions — the 2–4 real fault lines the debate exposed.
• Where they converged — points all/most sides accepted.
• Strongest argument each side landed — steelman, one line each.
• What it depends on — the conditions that decide which side is right (so the user can map to their reality).
• Recommendation / verdict — your call, if the debate type warrants one (decisions/evaluations yes; pure exploration maybe not). Be decisive but show the load-bearing assumption.
• Open questions — what the debate couldn't resolve and what info would.

---

6. Clean up

After synthesis, shut the team down:

1. SendMessage each persona {type: "shutdown_request"}.
2. Once all are down, TeamDelete.

Do this even if the debate is cut short. Don't leave agents running.

---

Robustness notes

• Any domain. The casting step is the adapter — if the topic is unfamiliar, infer who has skin in the game and cast their representatives. No hardcoded domain assumptions.
• Bad casting is the #1 failure. If the debate is flat, the roster lacked opposed incentives — re-cast with sharper conflict rather than pushing harder on weak personas.
• Factual debates: let personas use research tools so they argue with real facts; flag clearly if a persona is speculating.
• Don't fake consensus. If sides genuinely don't resolve, say so — an honest "it depends on X" beats a forced winner.
• Keep the user oriented: show the motion and cast up front, narrate round transitions briefly so they can follow.