dialectic

name

dialectic

description

Run a dueling-sub-agents DIALECTIC to resolve a hard or contested decision — two adversarial debater sub-agents are each assigned one side, then argue back and forth (research → steelman the opponent → refute) across at least two full round-trips, until one genuinely convinces the other on the merits OR an irreducible crux is isolated for the human. Invoke for contested design / product / architecture / naming / security / trade-off calls where a single agent's take is suspect and adversarial stress-testing adds real value. Do NOT invoke for clear, low-stakes, or already-decided questions — the ceremony isn't worth it. Triggers on "dialectic", "have two agents debate this", "steelman both sides", "argue this out adversarially", "red-team both positions".

dialectic — adversarial dueling sub-agents for a contested decision

A structured debate that stress-tests a hard call before you trust a conclusion. An L1 orchestrator runs two L2 debater sub-agents, each assigned ONE side, and relays their arguments back and forth — each round demanding the debater steelman the opponent's latest, then refute it with researched counterpoints. It ends only when one side is genuinely CONVINCED on the merits, or the single crux the decision hinges on is isolated. The point: every claim is adversarially researched and countered, so no idea survives on assertion alone.

This composes with fray — a dialectic is a good way to work a human-blocked thread whose call is genuinely contested. Run it, then present the synthesis (or the isolated crux) to the human.

When to use — and when NOT

USE it when the decision is contested AND consequential and a lone agent's verdict is suspect: a design/architecture trade-off with real pull both ways, a product or naming call, a security posture, "should we do X or Y" where each has a strong case. The value is the adversarial pressure — each side actively hunting the other's weakest link.

Do NOT use it for a clear, low-stakes, or already-decided question. If the answer is obvious, or the cost of being wrong is trivial, the two-agent ceremony is waste — just decide (or dispatch a single research agent). Reserve it for the calls where being confidently-wrong is expensive.

Model tiering — both debaters are TOP tier

This is hard judgment work: the debaters must research, reason adversarially, and know when a concession is honest. Tier accordingly (per the fray model policy):

• The two L2 debaters: the sophisticated tier at HIGH+ effort — Fable when available, else Opus (Fable 5 is currently unavailable and hard-fails, so today that means fray:opus-high / fray:opus-xhigh; use fray:fable-high once Fable is back). Never a cheap tier — a confidently-wrong debater poisons the whole exercise.
• The L1 relay/synthesis (you, or a dispatched lead): also top tier — judging whether a concession is genuine and isolating the true crux is the hardest judgment in the loop.

Dispatch each debater through a fray profile (subagent_type: fray:opus-high, etc.), one at a time (serial — each round needs the previous round's output). The fray: prefix is required — a bare opus-high does not resolve.

The loop

1. Frame the two sides. State the decision as a clean A-vs-B (or two rival theses). Give each side a crisp charge.
2. L2-A — opening case for A. Dispatch A: research and make the STRONGEST evidence-grounded case for side A — claims backed by sources/experiments/citations, never asserted. Attack nothing yet; build the best A.
3. L2-B — steelman then refute. Dispatch B with A's full argument in the prompt: first STEELMAN A (restate its strongest form so A would agree you got it), then attempt REFUTATION — adversarially research each of A's claims, attack the weakest links, and make the strongest case for B.
4. Back to L2-A. Dispatch A with B's rebuttal: steelman B's counterpoints, then address each — refute it with evidence, or CONCEDE the point explicitly.
5. Bounce. Keep relaying each side's latest into the other, every round demanding steelman-then-refute of the newest points. Minimum TWO full round-trips — each side must respond to the other at least twice (A→B→A→B→A or longer); NEVER conclude after a single exchange.
6. Terminate when EITHER: one side is genuinely convinced (concedes the thesis on the merits, not to be agreeable), OR a crux is isolated — the one fact or value the decision reduces to, which no further argument can dissolve.
7. L1 synthesizes. Report: who convinced whom and ON WHAT GROUNDS; the surviving argument; and either the CONCLUSION or the isolated CRUX + your recommendation. For a human-owned decision (a default, security posture, product/brand/API call) this is recommend-only — surface the crux + rec, let the human decide.

Dispatch shape (sub-agents don't share context — carry the exchange in the prompt)

Each debater is a FRESH dispatch. It knows only what its prompt contains, so every round's prompt must carry the accumulated exchange so far (the decision framing + every prior round, verbatim or tightly summarized) plus the round's instruction. Sketch:

• Round 1 → A: [decision framing] You argue SIDE A. Research and make the strongest evidence-grounded case for A. Cite every load-bearing claim to a source you actually opened; an uncited claim is a lead, not a fact.
• Round 2 → B: [framing] [A's full argument] You argue SIDE B. First steelman A (restate its strongest form). Then refute: adversarially research each of A's claims, attack the weakest links, and make the strongest case for B. Cite everything.
• Round 3 → A: [framing] [A's arg] [B's rebuttal] Steelman B's counterpoints, then address EACH — refute with evidence or explicitly concede. Do not repeat your opening; engage B's specific points.
• Round 4 → B, Round 5 → A, … same pattern, until termination.

Keep the debaters model-consistent within a run (same tier both sides — a fair fight). Front-load each prompt with the citation requirement so no round drifts into unsourced assertion.

Anti-patterns (the L1 actively polices these)

• Talking past each other. Each round MUST directly address the other side's specific, newest points — not re-run its own opening in different words. If a round ignores the opponent's actual argument, reject it and re-dispatch with "address these specific points: …".
• False convergence. A debater conceding to be agreeable rather than because the argument won. The L1 JUDGES whether a concession is genuine — does it name the specific evidence/argument that changed its mind? A concession with no stated reason is suspect; push back ("why, specifically?") before accepting convergence.
• Stopping too early. One exchange is not a dialectic. Enforce the ≥2-round-trip floor; do not let a single strong-sounding opening end it.
• Manufactured disagreement. The inverse — dragging out a debate past genuine convergence or a clean crux. Once a side is truly convinced or the crux is isolated (and the floor is met), STOP and synthesize; don't pad rounds for symmetry.
• Unfair sides. Different tiers or lopsided prompts rig the outcome. Same model tier both sides, symmetric charges, same citation bar.