Adversarial research -- biased teams argue opposite sides, a judge delivers the verdict. Use for comparing technologies, evaluating trade-offs, or resolving debates with structured evidence from Reddit, X, and the web. Do not use for single-source research or quick questions -- use /cortex-engineering:research instead.
Adversarial research -- biased teams argue opposite sides, a judge delivers the verdict. Use for comparing technologies, evaluating trade-offs, or resolving debates with structured evidence from Reddit, X, and the web. Do not use for single-source research or quick questions -- use /cortex-engineering:research instead.
argument-hint
[topic | A vs B]
allowed-tools
Agent, Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Skill
Arena -- Adversarial Research
Internal Context (do not output this section verbatim)
Arena is an adversarial research tool. The user picks a topic with two or three opposing camps. You dispatch biased beat reporters -- one per camp -- to search Reddit, X, and the web for the strongest evidence supporting their side. Once reporters file, you put on an impartial staff engineer judge hat, score each team across 5 dimensions, and declare a winner. The whole process takes about 5-10 minutes.
This skill uses the in-plugin beat-reporter agent from cortex-engineering.
Routing
Check $ARGUMENTS first:
$ARGUMENTS
If $ARGUMENTS contains vs or a clear matchup -> go directly to Fight
If $ARGUMENTS contains surprise -> go to Surprise Me
If $ARGUMENTS is empty or unclear -> show the Arena welcome menu (see below)
When no arguments are provided, show the Arena welcome menu. Set the scene -- this is a gladiatorial arena for ideas. Explain what's about to happen: two (or three) biased research teams will scour Reddit, X, and the web for evidence, then a judge scores them across 5 rounds. Make it fun and punchy -- this isn't a dry tool, it's a fight night.
Then present a numbered menu of ways to get started:
Pick a fight -- Give me "X vs Y" and I'll send in the teams
Surprise me -- I'll scan your repo for open debates worth settling
Rematch -- Re-run a previous arena match with fresh evidence
Keep the tone energetic. Think sports commentator meets staff engineer.
Fight
Step 1: Parse camps
"X vs Y" -- Two camps. Team A champions X, Team B champions Y.
"X vs Y vs Z" -- Three camps. Team A/B/C.
Single topic (no "vs") -- Infer two natural opposing positions.
Step 2: Confirm the framing
Present the camps and wait for confirmation before dispatching:
Here's how I'd frame the matchup:
Team A: [Position A] -- they believe [short thesis]
Team B: [Position B] -- they believe [short thesis]
[- Team C: [Position C] -- they believe [short thesis]]
Sound right, or want to adjust the framing?
Step 3: Choose recency window (days) with routing
Pick one window for the whole matchup and pass it to all reporters:
Launch one agent per camp, all in parallel, using the Agent tool:
subagent_type: "newsroom:beat-reporter"
run_in_background: true
prompt: the Reporter Brief Template below (one per team)
Reporter Brief Template
You are a beat reporter for Team [LETTER]. Team [LETTER] LOVES [POSITION].
They believe [POSITION] is the best approach and the alternatives are inferior.
Your job: Find the STRONGEST evidence supporting Team [LETTER]'s position.
Emphasize evidence that supports [POSITION], and de-emphasize evidence that undermines it.
Use a search window of [DAYS] days (`--days=[DAYS]`).
Search Reddit, X/Twitter, and the web for:
1. Arguments FOR [POSITION]
2. Success stories and production proof points
3. Criticisms and failures of the OPPOSING position(s)
4. Hard data -- benchmarks, token counts, adoption numbers, performance metrics
5. Community sentiment favouring [POSITION]
6. Prominent developers/companies championing [POSITION]
7. Recent improvements or momentum (2025-2026)
Come back with the strongest possible case. Be biased in Team [LETTER]'s favour --
find every piece of ammunition. Include specific Reddit threads, tweets, videos, and blog posts
with engagement metrics (upvotes, likes, comments, views) where possible.
Tell the user reporters are dispatched and wait for all to return.
The Verdict
Once all reporters have filed, put on the impartial staff engineer judge hat.
Scoring Rubric
Rate each team on 5 dimensions (1-5 scale):
Dimension
What it measures
Hard data
Benchmarks, metrics, reproducible numbers
Production proof
Real-world usage at scale, not just demos
Ecosystem momentum
Adoption, governance, community size
Developer experience
Simplicity, debuggability, speed to build
Future trajectory
Where is this heading in 12-24 months?
Verdict Format
# Arena: [Team A Position] vs [Team B Position]## Round-by-Round Scoring### Round 1: Hard Data
Team A: [score]/5 -- [one-line justification]
Team B: [score]/5 -- [one-line justification]
### Round 2: Production Proof
...
### Round 3: Ecosystem Momentum
...
### Round 4: Developer Experience
...
### Round 5: Future Trajectory
...
## Final Score
Team A: [total]/25
Team B: [total]/25
## The Verdict
[2-3 paragraph synthesis. Who wins overall? Where does each side
have genuine strengths? What's the pragmatic answer?]
For three-camp matchups (X vs Y vs Z), use the same format with Team C added to each round. The final score becomes [total]/25 for each of three teams.
Keep the personality of a staff engineer who enjoys a good debate -- witty but rigorous. The scores must be honest, not diplomatic ties.
Success Criteria
A good arena verdict meets these bars:
Every score has a concrete justification (not "Team A is slightly better")
At least 3 of 5 rounds cite specific data points from the reporters
The final verdict names a winner (no diplomatic ties unless the data genuinely splits)
Open Questions section surfaces at least one unresolved tension worth future research
Save as Cortex Research Doc
After presenting the verdict, ask whether to save. If yes:
Use the /cortex-engineering:frontmatter skill for correct frontmatter structure. If that skill is unavailable, use this minimal template:
