mundi-orch-multi-llm-debate

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 1
  • critiques/{claude,gemini,gpt}.md — round 2
  • rebuttals/{claude,gemini,gpt}.md — round 3
  • synthesis.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.