/think-deliberate

name: think-deliberate
description: Adversarial deliberation process for making decisions. Spawns advocate agents for each option who argue their cases before a judge (you) who renders a verdict.
model: opus

Think-Deliberate - Adversarial Decision Making

Uses adversarial representation to ensure all options are robustly explored before making a decision. Inspired by the legal adversarial system where truth emerges from the collision of well-argued positions.

Roles

**Judge (You):** The Claude instance running this skill. You:

• Identify the options to be deliberated
• Spawn advocate agents for each option
• Listen to arguments and rebuttals
• Ask probing questions
• Render final judgment (or admit inability to decide)

**Advocates:** Subagents spawned for each option. They:

• Argue vigorously for their assigned option
• Research and gather evidence
• Rebut opposing arguments
• Acknowledge genuine weaknesses when challenged (good faith requirement)

Workflow

1. Parse the Decision

**Identify from user's request:**

• What decision needs to be made?
• What are the options? (minimum 2, no maximum)
• What criteria matter for this decision?
• What context is relevant?

**If options are unclear:**

• Ask user to enumerate the options explicitly
• Confirm you've understood them correctly

**Output:** Clear list of N options to deliberate.

2. Fact-Finding

**Before spawning advocates, ensure you have sufficient context.**

**Probe for:**

• **Constraints**: Budget, timeline, technical limitations, organizational requirements
• **Context**: Why is this decision being made now? What prompted it?
• **History**: What has been tried before? What's already been ruled out?
• **Stakeholders**: Who else is affected? What are their preferences?
• **Non-negotiables**: Are any criteria must-haves vs nice-to-haves?
• **Success criteria**: How will you know the decision was correct?

**Ask clarifying questions proactively** - don't assume the initial framing contains everything relevant. Users often omit context they consider obvious.

**Conclude fact-finding when:**

• You understand the decision's importance and urgency
• You know the key constraints advocates must work within
• You could explain the decision context to a colleague
• The user indicates they're ready to proceed

**Keep it focused** - you're gathering context, not conducting an interview. 3-5 clarifying questions is typical; more than 10 suggests the decision isn't ready for deliberation.

3. Spawn Advocates (Parallel)

**For each option, spawn an advocate agent:**

• Use `Task` tool with `subagent_type: "THK - Advocate"`
• Pass the option they represent
• Pass the decision context and criteria
• Pass any relevant background information
• All advocates present initial arguments in parallel

**Advocate prompt template:**

You represent: [OPTION]

Decision context: [WHAT IS BEING DECIDED]

Relevant criteria: [WHAT MATTERS FOR THIS DECISION]

Background: [ANY CONTEXT THE USER PROVIDED]

Present your initial argument for why [OPTION] is the best choice.

**Collect initial arguments from all advocates.**

4. Rebuttal Round (Parallel)

**Share all arguments with all advocates:**

• Each advocate sees what the others argued
• Each advocate responds with rebuttals
• All rebuttals collected in parallel

**Rebuttal prompt template:**

You represent: [OPTION]

Here are the arguments made by all advocates:

[ADVOCATE 1 - OPTION A]:
[argument]

[ADVOCATE 2 - OPTION B]:
[argument]

...

Present your rebuttal. Address the strongest points made against your option and counter the arguments made for competing options.

5. Judge's Questions (Optional)

**As judge, you may ask questions to:**

• Probe weaknesses you've identified
• Request clarification on claims
• Test how advocates handle challenges
• Explore edge cases or scenarios

**Question prompt:**

You represent: [OPTION]

The judge asks: [QUESTION]

Respond directly and honestly.

**You may question one advocate, multiple advocates, or all of them.**

6. Pre-Judgment Disclosure

**Before rendering judgment, explain your current thinking:**

• Which way you're leaning
• What reasoning is driving that
• What concerns remain

**Give advocates a final opportunity to respond:**

You represent: [OPTION]

The judge is leaning toward [OTHER OPTION] for the following reasons:
[REASONING]

This is your final opportunity to make your case. Respond to the judge's reasoning.

**Collect final arguments in parallel.**

7. Iterate or Conclude

**After final arguments, either:**

**A) Return to Step 5** if:

• New questions arose from final arguments
• You need more information to decide
• An advocate raised a point that needs exploration

**B) Proceed to judgment** if:

• You have sufficient information
• Further deliberation is unlikely to change the outcome
• You've reached the iteration limit

**Iteration limit: 10 rounds maximum** (a "round" is one cycle through steps 4-6)

8. Render Judgment

**Present your decision to the user:**

1. **The verdict**: Which option you recommend 2. **Primary reasoning**: The 2-3 most important factors 3. **Acknowledgment of trade-offs**: What you're giving up 4. **Confidence level**: How confident you are in this decision 5. **Key evidence**: What most influenced your decision

**Format:**

## Judgment

**Recommendation:** [OPTION]

**Reasoning:**
[Why this option wins]

**Trade-offs:**
[What you're sacrificing by not choosing alternatives]

**Confidence:** [High/Medium/Low] - [Brief explanation]

**Key factors:**
- [Factor 1]
- [Factor 2]
- [Factor 3]

9. Unable to Decide (Alternative Ending)

**If you truly cannot decide:**

• The options are genuinely equivalent
• Critical information is unavailable
• The decision depends on user preferences you can't infer

**Present to user:**

## Unable to Render Judgment

I cannot make a definitive recommendation because: [REASON]

**The deliberation reveal