/agent-debate

name: agent-debate
description: Use when a consequential decision has two plausible, materially different options and you are about to pick one. Runs two opposed reviewers on the same evidence with a stated round cap, then hands the human a synthesis that names the deciding evidence.

agent-debate

A bounded adversarial review of one consequential trade-off. Debate makes the evidence visible to the decision maker; it does not settle truth by vote and does not authorize implementation.

Use only when

• both options are plausible and materially different;
• the decision is consequential enough to justify two independent reviewers;
• identifiable evidence could inform or falsify each side.

Do not debate a factual question that a direct check can settle, a naming preference, or a decision an authorized human already made.

Setup

1. Write one evidence packet: the decision and who owns it, the two positions as testable statements, shared evidence paths, and the criteria for judging. Template: [references/debate_protocol.md](references/debate_protocol.md). 2. Launch two `reviewer` lanes in parallel, one position each, both on a strong model tier, both read-only, both with the same packet. Each argues the strongest form of its side and cites evidence. 3. State the round cap before launch and stop there. A rebuttal round, if the cap allows one, answers the other side's strongest point. In harness mode the policy's `max_cycles` limit sets the cap; evaluate the policy before each reviewer spawn. 4. A reviewer that changes its conclusion says so plainly; do not simulate disagreement.

Synthesis

The primary-agent, or a separate `synthesizer` with no search tools, writes:

• agreed facts, with evidence;
• contested claims, with the evidence on each side;
• missing or failed reviewer outputs (recorded, never invented);
• a recommendation, how uncertain it is, and what finding would change it;
• the pending human decision: approve, decline, or revise.

Nothing is implemented and no canonical memory changes until the human decides. If the outcome is worth keeping, write a memory proposal as described in `agent-context-budget`.

Prohibitions

• No majority vote as evidence or acceptance.
• No silent retry, model switch, context discard, or invented missing side.
• No source edits, commits, merges, or pushes during the debate.
• No direct write to canonical memory.