| name | dispute |
| description | Cross-model dispute with Claude + GPT + Gemini. All three models give independent positions, then see each other's arguments and negotiate through rounds until consensus. Use for stack choices, architecture decisions, or any important technical decision. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| allowed-tools | AskUserQuestion, Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Agent, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, mcp__gemini__gemini, mcp__gemini__gemini-reply |
| argument-hint | ["topic"] |
| model | opus |
| effort | high |
GODMODE Cross-Model Dispute
Three independent AI models debate until consensus.
Topic: $ARGUMENTS
Participants
- Claude (you, the orchestrator) — Architect #1
- GPT (via mcp__codex__codex) — Architect #2
- Gemini (via mcp__gemini__gemini) — Architect #3
Step 0: Preparation
- Analyze the topic. Determine what context is needed (files, code, prior decisions).
- Read relevant files if needed.
- Formulate a clear dispute question with full context.
- Prepare the expert prompt for GPT and Gemini — they need FULL context since they don't see our conversation.
Step 1: Independent Positions (Round 1)
All three models give positions independently (no one sees others' answers yet).
Claude: Write your position directly in the conversation.
GPT: Send via mcp__codex__codex with:
- Full context of the dispute topic
- Role: "You are Architect #2 in a 3-way dispute. Give your INDEPENDENT position."
- developer-instructions: architect prompt
- sandbox: read-only
Gemini: Send via mcp__gemini__gemini with:
- Same full context
- Role: "You are Architect #3 in a 3-way dispute. Give your INDEPENDENT position."
- sandbox: read-only
Launch GPT and Gemini in parallel (same message, two tool calls).
Save all three positions. Present to user.
Step 2: Cross-Critique (Round 2)
Each model sees ALL other positions and critiques them.
Claude: Read GPT's and Gemini's positions. Critique both — find at least 2 weaknesses in each.
GPT (via mcp__codex__codex-reply or new session): Send:
- Claude's position (full text)
- Gemini's position (full text)
- Task: "Critique both positions. Find at least 2 weaknesses in each. Defend your own where you disagree."
Gemini (via mcp__gemini__gemini-reply or new session): Send:
- Claude's position (full text)
- GPT's position (full text)
- Task: "Critique both positions. Find at least 2 weaknesses in each. Defend your own where you disagree."
Launch GPT and Gemini in parallel.
Save all critiques. Present to user.
Step 3: Defense & Concessions (Round 3)
Each model responds to criticism and acknowledges valid points.
Claude: Read critiques from GPT and Gemini. Respond: what you accept, what you defend.
GPT: Send both critiques (from Claude and Gemini) of GPT's position.
Task: "These are critiques of YOUR position. Respond: what do you concede? What do you defend and why?"
Gemini: Send both critiques (from Claude and GPT) of Gemini's position.
Task: "These are critiques of YOUR position. Respond: what do you concede? What do you defend and why?"
Launch GPT and Gemini in parallel.
Step 4: Consensus Check
Analyze all three Round 3 responses. Categorize:
| Category | Description |
|---|
| CONSENSUS | All three agree |
| MAJORITY | Two agree, one disagrees |
| OPEN | All three still disagree |
If no OPEN items remain → go to Step 6 (Final Document).
If OPEN items exist → go to Step 5 (Negotiation).
Step 5: Negotiation Rounds (repeat until consensus or max 2 extra rounds)
For each OPEN item:
Send to GPT and Gemini:
- Current state: who agrees on what, what's still open
- The specific point of disagreement
- Task: "Propose a compromise or explain why you cannot concede this point."
Claude also proposes compromise.
After each negotiation round, re-check consensus:
- Resolved → move to CONSENSUS
- Still open after 2 extra rounds → mark as UNRESOLVED, record all positions
Maximum total rounds: 5 (3 standard + 2 negotiation).
Step 6: Final Document
Write a summary document with:
# Dispute: [Topic]
Date: [date]
Participants: Claude (Opus), GPT (Codex), Gemini
## Consensus (all agree)
- [point 1]
- [point 2]
## Majority decisions (2 of 3)
- [point]: [majority position] — [dissenter] disagrees because [reason]
## Unresolved (if any)
- [point]: Claude says X, GPT says Y, Gemini says Z
## Final Recommendation
[synthesized recommendation based on consensus + majority]
## Key Arguments
[most valuable insights from each participant]
Present to user for final decision.
Record in project MEMORY.md.
Rules
- All three models MUST participate. If GPT or Gemini MCP is unavailable, inform user and fall back to 2-model dispute.
- Never fake consensus — real disagreements are valuable.
- Each model gets FULL context of others' positions — no "telephone game".
- Orchestrator (Claude) must be intellectually honest — concede when GPT or Gemini make better arguments.
- GPT and Gemini prompts must include ALL relevant context (they don't see our conversation).
- Use multi-turn (threadId via *-reply) when possible to preserve context across rounds.
- Maximum 5 rounds total to avoid infinite loops.
- Present each round's results to user before proceeding to next.
