| name | mundi-orch-multi-llm-debate |
| description | Adversarial cross-model debate — Claude vs Gemini vs GPT argue opposing sides of a decision, structured multi-round, escalating specificity. Use when genuine adversarial diversity is needed (not Claude-vs-Claude debate which has correlated priors). Distinct from /mundi:debate which is Claude-only chat.json. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Task, WebFetch |
Mundi Orch — Multi-LLM Debate
Overview
Cross-model adversarial debate. Takes a proposition (architectural choice, hire, acquisition, etc.), assigns opposing sides to different providers (Claude + Gemini + GPT), and runs multi-round structured debate. Distinct from /mundi:debate (Claude-only chat.json) in that the providers have genuinely uncorrelated priors.
Related to mundi-orch-multi-llm-consensus — consensus is "agree-or-flag-divergence", debate is "actively attack each other's reasoning."
When to use
- Evaluating a contentious proposal where you need the strongest case for and against
- Pre-mortem on a decision Claude already recommended ("Gemini: argue why this fails")
- Architectural tradeoff reviews (microservices vs monolith, build vs buy, etc.)
- Legal / ethics / compliance edge-cases
- Board prep: "what will the skeptical director ask?"
Do NOT use when:
- Question is factual (look it up, don't debate it)
- Reversible / low-stakes (single-model is cheaper)
- Single provider is available (no real adversarial — use
/mundi:debate instead)
Architecture
Proposition
│
├─ Round 1 (Position Papers, parallel)
│ Claude → argues PRO / assigned position A
│ Gemini → argues CON / assigned position B
│ GPT → argues alt position C or skeptic
│
├─ Round 2 (Cross-Examination)
│ Each reads siblings → writes targeted critiques
│ "Here's where position A breaks down..."
│
├─ Round 3 (Rebuttals)
│ Each responds to strongest critique
│
└─ Scribe (Opus aggregator)
Extract: strongest argument per side, unresolved
Output: debate transcript + synthesis
Pipeline (6 steps)
[1] Frame proposition → user provides or elaborates
[2] Assign positions → auto (Claude=PRO, Gemini=CON, GPT=alt) OR user-specified
[3] Round 1: position papers (parallel fan-out, 200-400 words each)
[4] Round 2: cross-examination (each reads siblings, critiques strongest point)
[5] Round 3: rebuttals (each responds to targeted critique)
[6] Scribe aggregation → extract strongest arguments per side + unresolved points
I/O contract (MWP)
state_reads:
~/Mundi Princeps/config/api_keys.json — all 3 providers~/.claude/skills/claude-agent-sdk/ — Claude invocation pattern~/.claude/skills/agent-chatrooms/ — chat.json pattern for debate structure~/.claude/skills/saraev-iterative-multi-agent-debate-visualization/ — output viz pattern
state_writes:
docs/debates/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<topic>/ — artifact dir
position-papers/{claude,gemini,gpt}.md — round 1critiques/{claude,gemini,gpt}.md — round 2rebuttals/{claude,gemini,gpt}.md — round 3synthesis.md — scribe output (strongest args + unresolved)transcript.md — full three-round transcript
Composition
| step | tool |
|---|
| Claude | claude-agent-sdk skill or direct CLI call |
| Gemini | Gemini 3.1 Pro via curl, Files API if needed |
| GPT | OpenAI API via Codex bridge or direct |
| parallel orchestration | superpowers:dispatching-parallel-agents |
| chat.json debate | agent-chatrooms skill pattern |
| scribe | Opus-only, fixed role prompt |
| visualization | saraev-iterative-multi-agent-debate-visualization (optional) |
Round structure
Round 1 — Position Papers (200-400 words each, parallel, 30-60s each):
- Independent (no peer context)
- Each argues their assigned side
- Must include: thesis, 3 supporting arguments, 1 acknowledged weakness
Round 2 — Cross-Examination (100-200 words each, sequential after Round 1 complete):
- Each reads all siblings
- Identifies strongest opposing view
- Attacks load-bearing assumption, not rhetoric
Round 3 — Rebuttals (100-200 words each):
- Responds to the specific targeted critique
- Must either concede or explain why the critique misses
Scribe: fixed role — quote + tally + surface unresolved, NEVER re-argue.
Failure modes
| failure | recovery |
|---|
| One provider times out | defer that round; 2-way debate continues |
| Echo (all agree too soon) | add adversarial framing: "Gemini, you MUST argue against Claude's claim even if you find it compelling" |
| Personality drift (generic agreeable tone) | tighten system prompts with provider-specific priors (Claude=cautious, Gemini=scale, GPT=pragmatic) |
| Scribe injects its own view | reject + regenerate with tighter role prompt |
Invocation
Skill(skill="mundi-orch-multi-llm-debate", {
proposition: "We should open-source the capiq-mcp tool registration layer",
positions: {"claude": "pro", "gemini": "con", "gpt": "risk-focused alternative"},
rounds: 3,
scribe: "opus",
save_artifact: true,
output_dir: "docs/debates/capiq-oss-2026-04-20/"
})
Output contract
{
"proposition": "...",
"providers_engaged": ["claude", "gemini", "gpt"],
"rounds_completed": 3,
"strongest_pro_argument": "...",
"strongest_con_argument": "...",
"strongest_alt_argument": "...",
"unresolved_points": [...],
"load_bearing_assumptions": [...],
"synthesis_md": "docs/debates/.../synthesis.md",
"transcript_md": "docs/debates/.../transcript.md"
}
Cross-references
- Distinct from:
/mundi:debate (Claude-only chat.json)
- Related:
mundi-orch-multi-llm-consensus (agreement-oriented), mundi-orch-multi-llm-route (task→provider classifier), /mundi:debate-then-verify
- Plugin skills:
linkdrop-x-tom-doerr-multi-llm-council-deliberation (18-persona /council)
- Memory:
feedback_linkdrop_faithfulness.md, feedback_edit_source.md
- KB:
docs/knowledge-base/wiki/01-ai-development-and-agents/INDEX.md
- Plan source:
docs/plans/2026-04-19-phase-3-final.md line 863
Safety
- Provider diversity required. If only Claude responds, abort — this skill degenerates to
/mundi:debate.
- Scribe role is locked. Quote + tally, never re-argue. If scribe adds its own view, regenerate.
- Debate is an input, not a decision. Save the artifact; make the call yourself.
- Cost awareness: 3 providers × 3 rounds = 9 calls. Budget accordingly.
