critic-defender-judge

name	critic-defender-judge
description	Strategy: Classic triangular debate — Critic attacks, Defender responds, Judge adjudicates. Based on Irving AI Safety via Debate with Toulmin argumentation structure.
type	strategy
tactics	["dialectical-escalation","evidence-tournament"]
dependencies	{"tactics":["evidence-tournament","stress-test-dialectical-escalation"],"sops":["confidence-calibration","debate-architect","debate-critic","debate-defender","debate-judge","evidence-scout"]}

Critic-Defender-Judge Strategy

Classic adversarial triangle: one agent attacks, one defends, one judges.

Method

1. debate-architect designs attack vectors based on artifact type
2. debate-critic generates structured attacks using Toulmin model
3. debate-defender responds with counter-evidence and rebuttals
4. debate-judge evaluates exchange quality and produces round verdict
5. Repeat with escalating pressure (dialectical-escalation tactic)

Budget Table

Parameter	S	M	L
Debate rounds	4	8	12
Participating agents	3	5	8
Coverage dimensions	3	5	7
External evidence searches	2	5	10

Orchestration

debate-architect → [for each round]:
  debate-critic → debate-defender → debate-judge
  → confidence-calibration → (escalate or terminate)
→ debate-transcript-analysis → verdict-synthesis

Subagents

• debate-architect (structure design)
• debate-critic (attack generation)
• debate-defender (defense generation)
• debate-judge (round adjudication)
• confidence-calibration (escalation decision)
• evidence-scout (when evidence-tournament tactic active)

Available Tactics

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

Tactic	When to use
evidence-tournament	Tactic: Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment. External evidence is collected, presented, challenged, and scored for relevance and reliability.
stress-test-dialectical-escalation	Tactic: Progressive debate escalation based on confidence thresholds. Each round increases attack sophistication until defender collapses or proves resilient.

Available SOPs

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

SOP	When to use
confidence-calibration	Calibrates confidence scores based on debate progression. Determines whether to escalate, continue, or terminate based on cumulative evidence.
debate-architect	Designs debate structure based on artifact type — selects attack vectors, assigns perspectives, determines escalation ladder, and configures round parameters.
debate-critic	Generates structured criticism from attack stance using Toulmin model. Produces claims, grounds, warrants, and rebuttals targeting artifact weaknesses.
debate-defender	Responds to attacks with counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Defends artifact using evidence, clarification, and rebuttal while acknowledging valid criticisms.
debate-judge	Evaluates debate exchanges, adjudicates argument quality, and produces round verdicts with confidence scores and reasoning.
evidence-scout	Searches for external evidence supporting or opposing specific claims. Returns structured evidence with source assessment and relevance scoring.