| name | discourse-coordinator |
| description | Meta-skill that orchestrates the discourse skill suite: routes between steel-man-argument, socratic-questioning, toulmin-argument-analysis, logical-fallacy-detector, bad-faith-rhetoric-detector, discourse-elision-analyzer, forensic-speech-structure, and productive-discourse-facilitator. Use when analyzing conversations, facilitating discourse, or operating as a dialogue copilot. Maintains mode (silent analysis, coaching overlay, active facilitator) and decides which skills to invoke based on conversation dynamics. |
| metadata | {"version":"1.0","io-contract":{"kind":"structured"}} |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| allowed-tools | Read,Write,Edit,Glob,Grep |
Discourse Coordinator
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
- Operating as a discourse copilot across a multi-turn conversation
- A user needs holistic discourse support rather than a single specific skill
- Analyzing an ongoing or recorded conversation for quality, integrity, and dynamics
- Facilitating a dialogue between parties with different positions
- The user wants help preparing a persuasive speech, debate position, or written argument
- Conflict level in a conversation is rising and you need to decide how to intervene
- The user asks for "discourse analysis," "conversation coaching," or "dialogue support"
Do NOT use this skill when the user has a narrow, single-skill request (e.g., "find fallacies in this paragraph" → use logical-fallacy-detector directly).
Four Cooperating Roles
The eight discourse skills are organized into four functional roles. This coordinator routes between them.
Builder — Structures and Strengthens Arguments
| Skill | Purpose |
|---|
steel-man-argument | Construct the strongest possible version of any position |
toulmin-argument-analysis | Map claim → grounds → warrant → backing → qualifier → rebuttal |
forensic-speech-structure | Compose and structure a speech or written argument for delivery |
Guide — Shapes the Process of Dialogue
| Skill | Purpose |
|---|
socratic-questioning | Drive inquiry-based exploration; surface assumptions |
productive-discourse-facilitator | Set norms, manage turns, propose phase transitions |
Critic — Inspects Quality and Integrity
| Skill | Purpose |
|---|
logical-fallacy-detector | Identify formal and informal fallacies in reasoning |
bad-faith-rhetoric-detector | Flag manipulation, deflection, and bad-faith moves |
discourse-elision-analyzer | Detect what is conspicuously absent or avoided in a response |
Coordinator — This Skill
Routes between roles based on goal, mode, and conversation state. Tracks patterns across turns and manages mode transitions.
Three Operating Modes
Mode 1: Silent Analysis (Default)
- Continuously evaluate each turn using Critic skills in the background
- Surface only minimal indicators (e.g., a single-line flag) unless the user explicitly asks for detail
- Track patterns across turns: escalation trajectory, repeated elisions, accumulating fallacy count
- Never interrupt the flow of conversation; log internally and report on request
Activation: Default on load. Also activated by phrases like "watch this conversation," "just observe," "monitor this."
Mode 2: Coaching Overlay
- Provide private feedback to the user only — the other party does not see this
- Examples of coaching prompts:
- "Your last turn dodged their core question about liability. Consider addressing it directly."
- "Consider steelmanning their concern about X before pushing Y — it may reduce defensiveness."
- "Their last three turns show a pattern: they've never engaged your cost argument. Flag it."
- Suggest small, targeted interventions via Guide skills
- Tone: supportive, non-judgmental, specific
Activation: User phrases like "coach me," "give me feedback," "help me respond," "what should I say."
Mode 3: Active Facilitator
- All parties are aware the agent is participating as a third voice
- Uses
productive-discourse-facilitator to establish ground rules and manage turn structure
- Proposes Structured Analytical Conversation (SAC) moves: restatements, clarifying questions, phase transitions
- Calls out patterns that undermine dialogue openly (e.g., "I notice this question has gone unanswered three times")
- Can introduce steelmanning rounds, inquiry phases, or synthesis prompts
Activation: User phrases like "facilitate this," "be the moderator," "help us have this conversation," or explicit consent from all parties.
Routing Logic
Use these rules to decide which skill(s) to invoke for a given turn or request:
| Situation | Primary Route | Secondary Check |
|---|
| User's goal is to persuade | Builder skills | Critic (quality check) |
| User's goal is to understand | Guide skills | Critic (integrity check) |
| User's goal is to analyze/evaluate | Critic skills | — |
| Conflict level rising | Guide → productive-discourse-facilitator | Critic (monitoring) |
| Long response follows short pointed question | discourse-elision-analyzer | logical-fallacy-detector |
| Repeated non-engagement with a core point | bad-faith-rhetoric-detector | discourse-elision-analyzer |
| User preparing to speak or write | Builder → Critic | — |
| Emotional intensity high | productive-discourse-facilitator first | Builder after de-escalation |
| Argument structure unclear | toulmin-argument-analysis | — |
| User wants strongest form of opponent's view | steel-man-argument | — |
| Formal speech or debate prep | forensic-speech-structure | steel-man-argument for rebuttal prep |
For full decision trees, threshold definitions, and conflict-resolution between skills, see references/routing-rules.md.
Orchestration Patterns
Hot Topic Protocol (for active conflict)
Use when two or more parties are in active disagreement with rising stakes.
- Phase 0 – Setup: Facilitator asks each side for a brief 2–3 sentence position statement. Run
toulmin-argument-analysis privately to map each side's structure.
- Phase 1 – Mutual Steelman:
steel-man-argument helps each side restate the other's position at its strongest. The originating party must confirm the restatement is accurate before proceeding.
- Phase 2 – Inquiry:
socratic-questioning drives a round of mutual questions. Each party asks one genuine question; the other must answer directly before asking theirs.
- Phase 3 – Integrity Check:
logical-fallacy-detector and bad-faith-rhetoric-detector scan the full conversation neutrally; findings shared with all parties.
- Phase 4 – Synthesis:
productive-discourse-facilitator guides toward identifying any shared ground, naming remaining disagreements precisely, and proposing next steps.
Quick Analysis (for a single turn or response)
Use when a user pastes a text and asks "what's wrong with this?" or "analyze this response."
- Run
discourse-elision-analyzer on the text — what is conspicuously absent?
- Run
logical-fallacy-detector on any arguments found
- Summarize findings in 3–5 bullet points, ordered by significance
Speech Prep Pipeline
Use when a user is preparing a speech, essay, or structured argument.
toulmin-argument-analysis — structure raw ideas into claim/grounds/warrant/rebuttal scaffoldlogical-fallacy-detector — clean up reasoning; remove or repair weak inferencesforensic-speech-structure — compose the speech with appropriate structure (introduction, body, conclusion, transitions)steel-man-argument — anticipate the strongest counterarguments; build refutation section
State Tracking
Maintain this state across turns in a conversation:
- Conversation temperature: calm → warm → heated → crisis
- Unanswered core questions: running list; flag if a question goes unanswered for 3+ turns
- Pattern accumulation:
- Elision count (how many times key topics have been avoided)
- Fallacy count (types and frequency)
- Bad-faith pattern count (types and frequency)
- Mode: current operating mode and what triggered any transitions
- Phase (in Hot Topic Protocol): which phase the conversation is in
Report state summary when asked or when escalating to a new mode.
Sensitivity Settings
Adjust behavior based on the declared or inferred context:
relationship-mode (personal relationships, family, romantic partners):
- Extra caution with labeling; avoid "bad faith" as a definitive label — use "pattern that may indicate..."
- Validate emotional content before analytical content
- Emphasize understanding over winning
- Do not recommend confrontational moves
professional-mode (workplace, business negotiations, academic debate):
- More direct analysis; less emotional hedging
- Name patterns clearly and specifically
- Focus on argument structure and productive outcomes
debate-prep-mode (competitive debate, formal argumentation):
- Optimize for competitive strength; find every weakness in the opponent's case
- Less concern for relationship preservation; prioritize logical rigor
- Use
forensic-speech-structure with competitive framing
- Aggressive use of
steel-man-argument to anticipate and pre-empt
Set by user instruction or infer from context. Default: professional-mode.
Reference Files
-
diagrams/01_flowchart_decision-points.md — Mermaid flowchart routing incoming requests through scope validation, constraint assessment, and pattern selection. Read when deciding whether a request belongs to this skill or needs redirection.
-
references/routing-rules.md — Authoritative orchestration guide with full decision tree, routing patterns, edge cases, and multi-skill sequences for all discourse coordinator scenarios. Read when making complex routing decisions or designing a multi-skill intervention.
