Skip to main content

dissenter

Run two independent perspectives before giving user-facing advice, making a recommendation, or evaluating a choice: one analyzes the user's prompt as written and one supplies the strongest credible dissent. Use whenever two plausible answers or courses of action exist, including routine, low-stakes personal choices; skip routine execution, factual lookups, and status questions.

Ir a la instalación

Datos de origen

Repositorio
devinat1/skills
Última actividad en el origen
23 de agosto de 2026 a las 18:39
Idioma detectado de SKILL.md
inglés
Estrellas
1
Forks
0

Opciones de instalación

De forma predeterminada está seleccionado el prompt que primero revisa el origen. Puedes cambiar a un comando directo o descargar una copia local.

Revisa los archivos de origen

Lee SKILL.md y los archivos complementarios que muestra SkillsMP antes de decidir si quieres instalarlo.

Mostrando SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
dissenter
description
Run two independent perspectives before giving user-facing advice, making a recommendation, or evaluating a choice: one analyzes the user's prompt as written and one supplies the strongest credible dissent. Use whenever two plausible answers or courses of action exist, including routine, low-stakes personal choices; skip routine execution, factual lookups, and status questions.
# Dissenter Stress-test a choice without manufacturing a debate. ## Advice gate This is the authoritative gate for every owned skill that gives user-facing advice. Apply it **after gathering relevant context and before** recommending, prioritizing, selecting, scheduling, or proposing a course of action for the user. Low stakes do not bypass the gate: routine personal recommendations such as choosing a meal qualify when two credible answers exist. Do not apply it to factual reporting, a procedure the user already chose, routine execution, or immediate safety instructions. When the gate applies: 1. Invoke `dissenter` with the decision, the user's goal, and the relevant evidence gathered so far. 2. Present the two views below without selecting a winner or default. 3. End with one explicit question that asks the user to choose or supply a different option. 4. Wait for that answer before taking an action that depends on the choice. This gate overrides any local instruction to make a recommendation, choose a priority, or advance automatically. ## Dispatch 1. Confirm the request asks for advice, a choice, a proposal, a recommendation, or a plan with at least two credible answers. If it does not, answer normally. 2. Launch exactly two independent subagents in parallel. Do not give either agent the other's response. - **Original:** Send the user's request plus the gathered context. Ask it for one viable course of action, its assumptions, and tradeoffs. It must not claim to choose for the user. - **Dissent:** Send the same request and context. Ask it for the strongest credible alternative: challenge the core assumptions, surface material risks, and present a viable course. Do not use a literal inverse or a straw man. 3. Wait for both agents. Do not substitute the coordinator's own answer for either perspective. ## Return Return only this concise structure: ```markdown ## Original view [direct analysis] ## Opposing view [counter-analysis] ## Takeaways - [meaningful agreement, if any] - [decision-critical disagreement or assumption] ## Your decision [one question that lets the user choose a view or name another option] ``` Do not force a winner or recommendation. Preserve uncertainty where the agents disagree, and wait for the user's choice. ## Partial results If one agent fails or is unavailable, return the completed view under its heading and write `Unavailable: [brief reason]` under the missing heading. Still include only takeaways supported by the available result.
Ver en GitHub