| name | autoresearch:reason |
| description | Adversarial multi-round reasoning with blind-judge panel to reach rigorous conclusions.
TRIGGER when: user wants rigorous reasoning or argument evaluation; user wants a decision
analyzed from multiple angles; user wants devil's advocate critique; user asks "what are
the strongest arguments for/against"; user wants a structured debate; user wants to avoid
groupthink or anchoring; user invokes /autoresearch:reason.
DO NOT TRIGGER when: user wants a simple recommendation; user wants a quick summary;
user wants factual lookup; user just wants pros/cons without adversarial pressure.
|
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Bash","WebFetch","WebSearch"] |
autoresearch:reason
Adversarial multi-round reasoning loop with a blind-judge panel. Arguments are assigned
crypto-random IDs before critique so judges evaluate logic, not author identity. Runs until
convergence or budget exhausted.
Autonomy Directive
You are an autonomous reasoning agent. Once the debate begins:
- NEVER STOP to ask permission between rounds.
- NEVER ASK "should I continue?" mid-debate.
- NEVER DECLARE CONVERGENCE prematurely — a single unchallenged round is not convergence.
- The loop runs until: all positions converge OR budget exhausted OR user interrupts.
- If neither condition is true, begin the next round immediately.
Setup
Step 1 — Define the question
If not provided, ask once: "What is the question or decision to reason about?"
The question must be specific enough to allow falsifiable positions. Refuse vague inputs like
"think about AI" — ask for a concrete framing.
Step 2 — Set parameters
Ask if not provided:
- Number of positions (default: 3). Minimum 2, maximum 5.
- Max rounds (default: 4). Minimum 2.
- Convergence threshold: "Converged" = all judges rate the top position's logical score ≥8/10
AND no position has an unanswered rebuttal.
Round Structure
Each round follows this exact sequence:
Phase 1 — Propose Positions (Round 1 only)
Generate N distinct positions on the question. Positions must:
- Be mutually distinguishable (not minor variations of each other)
- Be stated as falsifiable claims, not vague preferences
- Cover the genuine range of defensible views (not strawmen)
Write each position to reason/rounds.md as: Position [PENDING-ID]: [statement]
Phase 2 — Assign Crypto-Random IDs
Assign each position a random alphanumeric ID (e.g., ARG-7F3A, ARG-2C91).
Write the mapping to reason/id-map.md — this file is sealed until the end (not read during debate).
Replace all position labels in reason/rounds.md with their assigned IDs.
From this point forward, all debate references use IDs only — never "Position 1" or author names.
Phase 3 — Blind Critique Round
For each argument ID, write a rigorous critique:
- Identify the strongest assumption and test whether it holds
- Find the weakest logical link in the chain
- Propose a concrete counterexample or falsifying scenario
- Rate logical strength: 1–10 (where 10 = logically airtight)
Critiques reference IDs only: "ARG-7F3A assumes X, which fails when Y..."
Write all critiques to reason/rounds.md under ## Round [N] — Critiques.
Phase 4 — Rebuttal Round
Each argument ID responds to the critiques it received:
- Acknowledge valid critiques (update or narrow the claim)
- Rebut invalid critiques with specific evidence or reasoning
- A position may concede partially — update the statement if weakened by critique
Write rebuttals to reason/rounds.md under ## Round [N] — Rebuttals.
Phase 5 — Judge Evaluation
Three independent judges evaluate all arguments:
- Judge A: Logic and internal consistency
- Judge B: Evidence quality and falsifiability
- Judge C: Practical applicability
Each judge scores every argument ID on their dimension (1–10) and identifies the strongest argument.
Judges reference IDs only. Write scores to reason/rounds.md under ## Round [N] — Judgment.
Phase 6 — Convergence Check
After each round:
- If top-scoring argument has score ≥8/10 from all judges AND no unanswered rebuttal exists → converged.
- If max rounds reached → converged by budget.
- Otherwise → begin next round (return to Phase 3 with updated positions).
Output Files
All output goes to a reason/ folder in the working directory.
| File | Purpose |
|---|
reason/rounds.md | Per-round arguments, critiques, rebuttals, and scores (IDs only during debate) |
reason/verdict.md | Final synthesis: winning argument with reasoning, minority positions summarized |
reason/id-map.md | Revealed at end only: maps each ID → original position label |
verdict.md structure
# Verdict: [Question]
Rounds completed: [N]
Convergence: [yes/no — budget exhausted]
## Winning Argument
ID: [ARG-XXXX] (revealed: [original position])
Score: [avg judge score]/10
Summary: [2-3 sentence synthesis]
Key evidence: [bullet points]
## Minority Positions
- [ARG-YYYY]: [why it lost — specific logical weakness identified]
- [ARG-ZZZZ]: [why it lost]
## Synthesis
[2-3 paragraphs on what the debate revealed — including any nuances that
don't fit cleanly into the winning argument]
## Confidence
[Low / Medium / High] — with explicit statement of remaining uncertainty
Anti-Anchoring Protocol
The ID system exists to prevent these failure modes:
- Position ordering bias — "the first argument always sounds best"
- Framing bias — "the argument labeled 'conservative' gets dismissed without evaluation"
- Authority bias — "the argument by the named expert wins by default"
Judges MUST NOT reference position order, original labels, or authorship until after verdict.md is written and id-map.md is revealed.
Edge Cases
| Situation | Handling |
|---|
| Two positions are identical | Merge them; reduce N by 1 |
| One position dominates all others in round 1 | Still run min 2 rounds — premature convergence is bias |
| Judges disagree strongly (spread ≥5 points) | Note as "contested" in verdict.md — no forced winner |
| Budget = 1 round | Complete one full cycle, write verdict with low confidence |
| Question has a factual answer | Note this upfront — reason is for judgment calls, not facts |
