/adversarial-deliberation

name: adversarial-deliberation
description: "Run structured attack/defense/adjudication over a claim, candidate, criterion set, or current winner. Perspective, target, escalation depth, loser-resurrection, and steelman/winner-stress modes are parameters; role execution is runtime-agnostic."

adversarial-deliberation

Purpose

Run structured attack, defense, cross-examination, and adjudication over a claim, candidate, criterion set, or current winner.

Input contract

mode_contracts:
  critic-defender-judge: &deliberation_input
    required: [target, claim_or_candidate, criteria]
    optional: [perspectives, escalation_depth]
    constraints: [target_scope_and_criteria_must_be_explicit, evidence_provenance_required]
  courtroom: *deliberation_input
  winner-stress: *deliberation_input
  resurrection-advocacy: *deliberation_input
  criteria-interrogation: *deliberation_input
  stakeholder-objection: *deliberation_input
  counter-thesis: *deliberation_input

Execution protocol

Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.

1. You MUST load skill `construct-critique` to construct the strongest attack. You MUST load skill `construct-defense` to construct the strongest defensible case. 2. You MUST load skill `surface-assumptions` to expose load-bearing assumptions. You MUST load skill `construct-perspective-set` to construct alternate perspectives. 3. You MUST load skill `cross-examine` to cross-examine each exchange. You MUST load skill `assess-sensitivity` to perturb load-bearing choices. 4. You MUST load skill `adjudicate-exchange` to adjudicate against declared criteria. You MUST load skill `calibrate-adversarial-confidence` to update calibrated confidence. If the task shifts from balanced exchange to direct attack-surface probing, consider `structured-red-team`. If an exposed assumption requires focused perturbation, consider `assumption-stress-test`. If the surviving claim needs a decisive falsification program, `falsification-first-audit` may be the better next tactic. Deviation: skip defense only when the target is explicitly exploratory; skip sensitivity only when no perturbable input is declared; otherwise retain all steps.

Output contract

mode_contracts:
  critic-defender-judge: &full_deliberation_output
    produces: [attack_record, defense_record, adjudication, confidence_trace]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  courtroom: *full_deliberation_output
  winner-stress:
    produces: [attack_record, adjudication, confidence_trace]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  resurrection-advocacy: &defense_deliberation_output
    produces: [defense_record, adjudication, confidence_trace]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  criteria-interrogation:
    produces: [attack_record, defense_record, adjudication]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  stakeholder-objection: *full_deliberation_output
  counter-thesis: *defense_deliberation_output

Thresholds and quality gates

• A-class debate calibration: declared universe = all rounds and claims; numerator = rounds with evidence-linked confidence updates; batch increment = one completed exchange; stopping reason = confidence stabilizes or unresolved disagreement is explicitly reported; source references = evidence IDs and round IDs; direction/threshold reason = escalate when new evidence changes ranking, terminate only when criteria are adjudicated or a non-resolvable uncertainty is recorded.
• Every verdict must cite criteria and preserve dissent.

Failure and counterexamples

Do not treat rhetorical fluency as evidence. Mark unresolved when attack and defense share an untested assumption or criteria are absent.

Provenance map

• resolved: multiagent-debate
• resolved: critic-defender-judge
• resolved: courtroom-structured
• resolved: adversarial-escalation
• resolved: steel-manning
• resolved: resurrection-advocacy
• resolved: winner-stress-testing
• resolved: adversarial-debate-protocol
• resolved: assumption-excavation
• resolved: multi-perspective-attack
• intermediate: Pass5/adversarial-debate
• intermediate: Pass5/steelman-validation

Preserved source criteria ledger

| source | source line | kind | source criterion | |---|---:|---|---| | v4 architecture | node desc | textual | Structured attack/defense/adjudication; loser-resurrection and steelman/winner-stress are parameters. |

Context checkpoint / Delta notes

Append claim, criteria, attack/defense records, dissent, confidence changes, and unresolved questions.

Mode branches

• `critic-defender-judge`: attack, defense, adjudication.
• `courtroom`: add cross-examination and explicit evidentiary ruling.
• `winner-stress`: perturb the current winner and record failure triggers.
• `resurrection-advocacy`: re-open a rejected candidate with a steelman.
• `criteria-interrogation`: challenge the criteria before ranking.
• `stakeholder-objection`: add perspective-specific objections.
• `counter-thesis`: require a mechanism-distinct opposing thesis.