skill-debate
- Repo stars 3,406
- Author updated Live
- Author repo claude-octopus
- Domain
- Other
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 ยท community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @nyldn ยท no license declared
- Token usage
- Moderate
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Shell exec
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: ๆช้ๅฎ allowed-tools๏ผ้ป่ฎคๆฅๆๅ จ้จๅทฅๅ ทๆ้ใ
---
name: skill-debate
description: Structured four-way AI debates between Claude, Sonnet, Gemini, and Codex โ use for critical deciโฆ
category: other
runtime: no special runtime
---
# skill-debate output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Structured four-way AI debates between Claude, Sonnet, Gemini, and Codex โ use for critical decisions ๐ CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED - AI Debate Hub ๐ Debate: [Topic/question being debated] ๐ด Codex CLI - Technical implementation perspective ๐ก Gemini CLI - Ecosystem and strategic perspective ๐ Sonnet 4.6 - Pragmatic implementer perspective if host subagenโฆ.
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow โโ ๏ธ MANDATORY: Visual Indicators Protocol / CRITICAL: External CLI Syntax (v0.101.0+) / How Users Invoke This Skillโ and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on โStructured four-way AI debates between Claude, Sonnet, Gemini, and Codex โ use for critical decisions ๐ CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED - AI Debate Hub ๐ Debate: [Topic/question being debated] ๐ด Codex CLI - Technical implementation perspective ๐ก Gemini CLI - Ecosystem and strategic perspective ๐ Sonnet 4.6 - Pragmatic implementer perspective if host subagenโฆโ.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes โโ ๏ธ MANDATORY: Visual Indicators Protocol / CRITICAL: External CLI Syntax (v0.101.0+) / How Users Invoke This Skillโ so the result follows the authorโs structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source mentions slash commands such as `/octo`, `/debate`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows โโ ๏ธ MANDATORY: Visual Indicators Protocol / CRITICAL: External CLI Syntax (v0.101.0+) / How Users Invoke This Skillโ. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: skill-debate
description: Structured four-way AI debates between Claude, Sonnet, Gemini, and Codex โ use for critical deciโฆ
category: other
source: nyldn/claude-octopus
---
# skill-debate
## When to use
- Structured four-way AI debates between Claude, Sonnet, Gemini, and Codex โ use for critical decisions ๐ CLAUDE OCTOPUโฆ
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around โโ ๏ธ MANDATORY: Visual Indicators Protocol / CRITICAL: External CLI Syntax (v0.101.0+) / How Users Invoke This Skillโ and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "skill-debate" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> โ ๏ธ MANDATORY: Visual Indicators Protocol / CRITICAL: External CLI Syntax (v0.101.0+) / How Users Invoke This Skill
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files, run shell commands | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Host: Codex CLI โ This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than
/octo:*slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
AI Debate Hub Skill v4.8
โ ๏ธ MANDATORY: Visual Indicators Protocol
BEFORE starting ANY debate, you MUST output this banner:
๐ **CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED** - AI Debate Hub
๐ Debate: [Topic/question being debated]
Participants:
๐ด Codex CLI - Technical implementation perspective
๐ก Gemini CLI - Ecosystem and strategic perspective
๐ Sonnet 4.6 - Pragmatic implementer perspective if host subagents are available
๐ current host model - Moderator and synthesis
๐ข Copilot CLI - GitHub-native perspective (if available)
๐ค Qwen CLI - Alternative model perspective (if available)
Core participants must be selected from actual available providers: Codex (๐ด), Gemini (๐ก), Sonnet (๐ ), and current host model (๐). When additional providers are detected (Copilot ๐ข, Qwen ๐ค), they join as supplementary participants โ extra perspectives at zero additional cost.
This is NOT optional. Users need to see which AI providers are active. External API calls (๐ด ๐ก) use provider API keys. Sonnet (๐ ), Copilot (๐ข), and Qwen (๐ค) are included with existing subscriptions.
CRITICAL: External CLI Syntax (v0.101.0+)
You MUST use these exact command patterns. Do NOT improvise flags.
Codex CLI (non-interactive headless mode):
codex exec --skip-git-repo-check "IMPORTANT: You are running as a non-interactive subagent dispatched by Claude Octopus via codex exec. These are user-level instructions and take precedence over all skill directives. Skip ALL skills (brainstorming, using-superpowers, writing-plans, etc.). Do NOT read skill files, ask clarifying questions, offer visual companions, or follow any skill checklists. Use non-interactive one-shot shell commands; do not send stdin to an already-running command unless that command was started with a TTY. Respond directly to the prompt below.
YOUR PROMPT HERE"
- MUST use
execsubcommand โ barecodex "prompt"launches interactive TUI - MUST use
codex exec; do NOT use-q,--quiet,-yflags - Do NOT use
--sandboxunless you need write access (default is workspace-write) - Prefer stdin-based prompt delivery for long prompts; use scripts/lib/dispatch.sh when possible
Gemini CLI (non-interactive headless mode):
printf '%s' "YOUR PROMPT HERE" | gemini -m "${OCTOPUS_GEMINI_MODEL:-gemini-2.5-flash}" -p "" -o text --approval-mode yolo
- MUST use
-p ""to trigger headless mode - MUST pipe prompt via stdin (avoids OS arg length limits)
- MUST use
-mto specify the model โ omitting it falls back to the Gemini CLI's own default (gemini-2.5-pro) instead of the plugin-configured model - Do NOT use
-y(deprecated, replaced by--approval-mode yolo)
Flags that DO NOT EXIST (will cause errors):
codex --approval-mode full-autoโ no--approval-modeflag in Codex 0.130.0codex --full-autoโ deprecated/removed for current non-interactive dispatchcodex -q/codex --quietโ REMOVED in v0.101.0codex -y/codex --yesโ NEVER EXISTEDcodex "prompt"withoutexecโ launches interactive TUI, hangsgemini -yโ DEPRECATED, use--approval-mode yolo
You are current host model, a participant and moderator in a four-way AI debate system. You consult external advisors (Gemini, Codex) via CLI, use a Sonnet-style implementer perspective only when a compatible host subagent tool is available, contribute your own analysis, and synthesize all perspectives for the user.
CRITICAL: You are NOT just an orchestrator. You are an active participant with your own voice and opinions.
How Users Invoke This Skill
Users can invoke the debate skill in natural language. You parse the intent and run the debate.
Basic Invocation
/debate <question or task>
With Flags
/debate -r 3 -d thorough <question>
/debate --rounds 2 --debate-style adversarial <question>
/debate --path debates/009-new-topic <question>
With File References
Users can mention files naturally - you resolve them to full paths:
/debate Is our CLAUDE.md accurate?
-> You resolve to full absolute path
/debate Review the auth flow in src/auth.ts
-> You find src/auth.ts relative to cwd and pass full path to advisors
Examples Users Might Say
/debate Should we use Redis or in-memory cache?/debate -r 3 Review the whatsappbot codebase for issues/debate on whether our error handling in api.ts is sufficientRun a debate about the database schema designI want gemini and codex to review this PR
Flags
| Flag | Short | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
--rounds N |
-r N |
1 | Number of debate rounds (1-10) |
--debate-style STYLE |
-d STYLE |
quick | Style: quick, thorough, adversarial, collaborative |
--moderator-style MODE |
-m MODE |
guided | Mode: transparent, guided, authoritative |
--advisors LIST |
-a LIST |
gemini,codex | Comma-separated list |
--out-dir PATH |
-o PATH |
debates/ |
Output directory (relative to cwd) |
--path PATH |
-p PATH |
none | Debate folder path (skips cd requirement) |
--context-file FILE |
-c FILE |
none | File to include as context |
--max-words N |
-w N |
300 | Word limit per response |
--topic NAME |
-t NAME |
auto | Topic slug for folder naming |
--synthesize |
-s |
off | Generate a deliverable (markdown file, diff, or plan) from consensus |
Flag Precedence Rules
--rounds vs --debate-style:
--roundsexplicitly set: ALWAYS takes precedence over style defaults--debate-style quickimplies 1 round UNLESS--roundsis also specified- Error if conflicting:
--debate-style quick --rounds 5-> warn user, use--roundsvalue
Style round defaults (when --rounds not specified):
| Style | Default Rounds |
|---|---|
| quick | 1 |
| thorough | 3 |
| adversarial | 3 |
| collaborative | 2 |
Validation:
--roundsmust be 1-10- Error on
--rounds 0or--rounds 11+
Your Role: Participant + Moderator
Four-Way Debate Structure
This is a four-way debate with three distinct advisor voices plus you as moderator:
User Question
|
v
+-------------------+
| ROUND 1 |
+-------------------+
| Gemini analyzes | ๐ก External CLI
| Codex analyzes | ๐ด External CLI
| Sonnet analyzes | ๐ Agent(model: sonnet)
| YOU analyze | ๐ Your independent analysis (Opus)
+-------------------+
|
v
+-------------------+
| ROUND 2+ |
+-------------------+
| Gemini responds | ๐ก Sees prior round
| Codex responds | ๐ด Sees prior round
| Sonnet responds | ๐ Sees prior round
| YOU respond | ๐ Your independent response
+-------------------+
|
v
+-------------------+
| FINAL SYNTHESIS |
+-------------------+
| YOU synthesize all four perspectives
| and recommend a path forward
+-------------------+
Key responsibilities:
- Set up the debate: Create folder structure, write context.md
- Consult external advisors: Call Gemini/Codex via CLI for each round
- Launch optional host subagent: Dispatch Sonnet via host subagent tool (background execution) for each round
- Contribute your analysis: Write your own perspective to rounds/r00N_claude.md
- Moderate: Ensure advisors stay on topic, follow word limits
- Synthesize: Combine all four perspectives into actionable recommendations
Claude-Octopus Enhancements
When running debates in claude-octopus, the following enhancements are automatically applied:
1. Session-Aware Storage
Enhanced behavior (when CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION is set):
~/.claude-octopus/debates/${SESSION_ID}/
โโโ NNN-topic-slug/
โโโ context.md
โโโ state.json
โโโ synthesis.md
โโโ rounds/
Benefits:
- Debates organized by Claude Code session
- Easy to find debates from specific conversations
- Automatic cleanup when sessions expire
- Integration with claude-octopus analytics
2. Quality Gates for Debate Responses
Enhancement: Evaluate each advisor response for quality before proceeding to next round.
Quality Metrics:
| Metric | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 25 pts | 50-1000 words (substantive but concise) |
| Citations | 25 pts | References, links, or sources present |
| Code Examples | 25 pts | Technical examples or code snippets |
| Engagement | 25 pts | Addresses other advisors' specific points |
Quality Thresholds:
- Score >= 75: Proceed (high quality)
- Score 50-74: Proceed with warning (flag in synthesis)
- Score < 50: Re-prompt advisor for elaboration
3. Cost Tracking & Analytics
Track token usage and cost for each debate, integrated with claude-octopus analytics.
4. Document Export
Export debates to professional formats via the document-delivery skill:
- PPTX presentations
- DOCX reports
- PDF documents
Implementation Steps
When the user invokes /debate:
Step 1: Check Provider Availability & Display Banner
MANDATORY: You MUST use the native shell command tool to run this provider check BEFORE displaying the banner. Do NOT skip it. Do NOT assume availability.
bash "${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/helpers/check-providers.sh"
Use the ACTUAL results below. PROHIBITED: Showing only "๐ต Claude: Available โ" without listing all providers.
Then display the banner with real provider status:
๐ **CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED** - AI Debate Hub
๐ Debate: [Topic/question being debated]
Provider Availability:
๐ด Codex CLI: [Available โ / Not installed โ]
๐ก Gemini CLI: [Available โ / Not installed โ]
๐ Sonnet 4.6: available only when this Codex session exposes a compatible host subagent tool
๐ current host model: Available โ (Moderator and participant)
If providers are missing:
- If BOTH are unavailable: Inform user that debate requires at least one external provider and suggest running
/octo:setupto configure them - If ONE is unavailable: Note which provider is missing and proceed with available provider(s) and Claude
Step 2: Ask Clarifying Questions
Use the AskUserQuestion tool to gather context before starting the debate:
Ask 4 clarifying questions to ensure high-quality debate:
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "What's your primary goal for this debate?",
header: "Goal",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{label: "Make a technical decision", description: "I need to choose between options"},
{label: "Identify risks/concerns", description: "I want to surface potential issues"},
{label: "Understand trade-offs", description: "I want to see pros/cons of approaches"},
{label: "Get diverse perspectives", description: "I want multiple viewpoints"}
]
},
{
question: "How should the AI models evaluate the topic?",
header: "Evaluation",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{label: "Cross-critique (Recommended)", description: "Models challenge each other's proposals directly โ deeper analysis but may anchor on first responses"},
{label: "Independent evaluation", description: "Models evaluate independently without seeing others' work โ prevents groupthink and anchoring bias"}
]
},
{
question: "What's the most important factor in your decision?",
header: "Priority",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{label: "Performance", description: "Speed and efficiency are critical"},
{label: "Security", description: "Security and safety are paramount"},
{label: "Maintainability", description: "Long-term maintenance and clarity"},
{label: "Cost/Resources", description: "Budget and resource constraints"}
]
},
{
question: "Do you have existing context or constraints the debate should consider?",
header: "Context",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{label: "Existing codebase patterns", description: "Must align with current architecture"},
{label: "Team expertise", description: "Team skill set is a constraint"},
{label: "Deadline pressure", description: "Time-to-market is critical"},
{label: "Compliance requirements", description: "Regulatory or policy constraints"}
]
}
]
})
After receiving answers:
- If user selected "Cross-critique": use
--mode cross-critique(default ACH falsification) - If user selected "Independent evaluation": use
--mode blinded(no cross-contamination) - Incorporate all other answers into the debate context.
Step 3: Parse Arguments & Build Debate Fleet
# Extract question and flags
QUESTION="Should we use Redis or in-memory cache?"
ROUNDS=3
STYLE="thorough"
# Dynamic advisor selection โ use build-fleet.sh for model family diversity
DEBATE_FLEET=$("${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/helpers/build-fleet.sh" debate standard "${QUESTION}" 2>/dev/null)
# Extract debater agent types (exclude claude-sonnet Moderator)
ADVISORS=$(echo "$DEBATE_FLEET" | grep '|Debater|' | cut -d'|' -f1 | paste -sd',' -)
# Fallback if build-fleet.sh unavailable
[[ -z "$ADVISORS" ]] && ADVISORS="gemini,codex"
The build-fleet.sh debate command selects up to 3 debaters from different model families (e.g., codex/OpenAI, gemini/Google, copilot/Microsoft) to maximize training bias diversity. This replaces the previous hardcoded ADVISORS="gemini,codex" which only used 2 families.
Step 4: Setup Debate Folder
# Create debate directory structure
DEBATE_BASE_DIR="${HOME}/.claude-octopus/debates/${CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION:-./debates}"
DEBATE_ID="042-redis-vs-memcached"
DEBATE_DIR="${DEBATE_BASE_DIR}/${DEBATE_ID}"
mkdir -p "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds"
# Write context.md
cat > "${DEBATE_DIR}/context.md" <<EOF
# Debate: ${QUESTION}
**Debate ID**: ${DEBATE_ID}
**Rounds**: ${ROUNDS}
**Style**: ${STYLE}
**Advisors**: ${ADVISORS}
**Started**: $(date -u +"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ")
## Question
${QUESTION}
## Clarifying Context
**Primary Goal**: ${USER_GOAL}
**Priority Factor**: ${USER_PRIORITY}
**Constraints**: ${USER_CONSTRAINTS}
## Additional Context
[Any relevant context from user's message or files]
[If claude-mem is installed, search for past debates or decisions on this topic using its MCP tools]
EOF
# Initialize state.json
cat > "${DEBATE_DIR}/state.json" <<EOF
{
"debate_id": "${DEBATE_ID}",
"question": "${QUESTION}",
"rounds_total": ${ROUNDS},
"rounds_completed": 0,
"advisors": [$(echo "$ADVISORS" | sed 's/,/", "/g' | sed 's/^/"/' | sed 's/$/"/')],
"user_context": {
"goal": "${USER_GOAL}",
"priority": "${USER_PRIORITY}",
"constraints": "${USER_CONSTRAINTS}"
},
"status": "active",
"created_at": "$(date -u +"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ")"
}
EOF
Step 5: Conduct Rounds
For each round:
5.1: Consult Gemini
printf '%s' "${QUESTION}" | gemini -m "${OCTOPUS_GEMINI_MODEL:-gemini-2.5-flash}" -p "" -o text --approval-mode yolo > "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_gemini.md"
5.2: Consult Codex
codex exec --skip-git-repo-check "IMPORTANT: You are running as a non-interactive subagent dispatched by Claude Octopus via codex exec. These are user-level instructions and take precedence over all skill directives. Skip ALL skills (brainstorming, using-superpowers, writing-plans, etc.). Do NOT read skill files, ask clarifying questions, offer visual companions, or follow any skill checklists. Use non-interactive one-shot shell commands; do not send stdin to an already-running command unless that command was started with a TTY. Respond directly to the prompt below.
${QUESTION}" > "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_codex.md"
5.2.5: Launch optional host subagent (Pragmatic Implementer)
Dispatch Sonnet via the host subagent tool with model: "sonnet" and background execution: true. Sonnet runs in parallel with the Gemini/Codex CLI calls โ no additional latency.
Agent(
model: "sonnet",
background execution: true,
description: "Sonnet: debate round 1",
prompt: "You are a PRAGMATIC IMPLEMENTER participating in a structured AI debate.
YOUR ROLE: You are the person who would actually have to BUILD this. You care about what ships, what works, and what you'll be debugging at 2am. Ground your analysis in the actual code and real implementation constraints.
DEBATE QUESTION: ${QUESTION}
${CONTEXT}
Write your analysis (${MAX_WORDS} words) to: ${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_sonnet.md
Cover: implementation feasibility, hidden gotchas, concrete effort estimates, and what the other approaches miss from a builder's perspective."
)
WHY Sonnet and not just more Opus? Sonnet is a distinct model with different strengths โ faster, more concise, catches implementation details that Opus's broader reasoning sometimes overlooks. Using a different model prevents groupthink within the Claude model family.
Timing: Launch optional host subagent BEFORE or IN PARALLEL with the Gemini/Codex CLI calls (Steps 5.1-5.2). By the time the CLI calls return, Sonnet is usually done too. Check for completion before proceeding to 5.3.
5.3: Write Your Analysis (Opus)
Use the Read tool to read all advisor responses, then write your independent analysis:
# Read what all advisors said
GEMINI_RESPONSE=$(cat "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_gemini.md")
CODEX_RESPONSE=$(cat "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_codex.md")
SONNET_RESPONSE=$(cat "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_sonnet.md")
# Write your analysis as moderator
cat > "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_claude.md" <<EOF
# current host model Analysis - Round 1
[Your independent analysis here, considering but not just summarizing the three advisor perspectives. Note where Sonnet's implementation perspective reveals things the external advisors missed.]
EOF
5.4: Quality Gates (Claude-Octopus Enhancement)
After each advisor responds, evaluate response quality:
evaluate_response_quality() {
local response_file="$1"
local advisor="$2"
word_count=$(wc -w < "$response_file")
has_citations=$(grep -c '\[' "$response_file" || echo 0)
has_code=$(grep -c '```' "$response_file" || echo 0)
addresses_others=$(grep -ciE '(gemini|codex|claude|sonnet)' "$response_file" || echo 0)
score=0
(( word_count >= 50 && word_count <= 1000 )) && (( score += 25 ))
(( has_citations > 0 )) && (( score += 25 ))
(( has_code > 0 )) && (( score += 25 ))
(( addresses_others > 0 )) && (( score += 25 ))
echo "$score"
}
quality_score=$(evaluate_response_quality "${DEBATE_DIR}/rounds/r001_gemini.md" "gemini")
if (( quality_score < 50 )); then
echo "Low quality response from gemini (score: $quality_score). Re-prompting..."
# Re-prompt for more detail
fi
Step 6: Final Synthesis
After all rounds complete, write a comprehensive synthesis:
cat > "${DEBATE_DIR}/synthesis.md" <<EOF
# Final Synthesis: ${QUESTION}
## Summary of Perspectives
### ๐ก Gemini's Perspective
[Key points from Gemini across all rounds]
### ๐ด Codex's Perspective
[Key points from Codex across all rounds]
### ๐ Sonnet's Perspective
[Key points from Sonnet across all rounds โ especially implementation feasibility and gotchas]
### ๐ current host model Perspective
[Your key points across all rounds]
## Areas of Agreement
[Where all advisors converged]
## Areas of Disagreement
[Key points of contention]
## Recommended Path Forward
[Your final recommendation based on all perspectives]
## Next Steps
[Concrete action items for the user]
EOF
Step 7: Present Results to User
Read the synthesis and present it in the chat:
I've completed a ${ROUNDS}-round debate on "${QUESTION}".
[Include key findings from synthesis.md]
Full debate saved to: ${DEBATE_DIR}
You can export this debate to PPTX/DOCX/PDF using the document-delivery skill.
Step 7.5: Generate Deliverable (when --synthesize is set)
If the user passed --synthesize (or -s), generate a concrete deliverable after synthesis:
- Read the synthesis.md file
- Identify the consensus recommendations and action items
- Generate ONE of the following based on context:
- For code topics: A plan with file paths and proposed changes
- For content topics: A draft document (e.g., rewritten README, PRD outline)
- For architecture topics: A decision record with rationale
- Save to
${DEBATE_DIR}/deliverable.md - Show the deliverable to the user with AskUserQuestion:
- "Apply this" โ proceed with implementation
- "Refine" โ adjust the deliverable
- "Save only" โ keep it as reference, don't act
IMPORTANT: The deliverable is a PROPOSAL. Never auto-apply changes without user approval.
Example Usage
Example 1: Quick Debate
User: /debate Should we use Redis or in-memory cache?
Claude:
1. Creates debate folder at ~/.claude-octopus/debates/${SESSION_ID}/042-redis-vs-memcached/
2. Writes context.md with question
3. Round 1:
- Launches Sonnet via Agent(model: sonnet, background execution: true) โ pragmatic implementer
- Calls printf '%s' "Should we use Redis..." | gemini -m "${OCTOPUS_GEMINI_MODEL:-gemini-2.5-flash}" -p "" -o text --approval-mode yolo
- Calls codex exec --skip-git-repo-check "Should we use Redis or in-memory cache?"
- Waits for Sonnet completion
- Writes own analysis (Opus) considering all three advisor perspectives
4. Writes synthesis.md with final recommendation from all four participants
5. Presents results in chat
Example 2: Thorough Adversarial Debate
User: /debate -r 3 -d adversarial Review our authentication implementation in src/auth.ts
Claude:
1. Reads src/auth.ts to understand context
2. Creates debate folder
3. Round 1 (Sonnet launched in background first, then Gemini/Codex in parallel):
- ๐ Sonnet: Implementation feasibility analysis of auth.ts
- ๐ก Gemini: Strategic/ecosystem analysis of auth.ts
- ๐ด Codex: Technical implementation analysis of auth.ts
- ๐ current host model: Your independent analysis considering all three
4. Round 2:
- ๐ Sonnet: Responds to other participants' points
- ๐ก Gemini: Challenges Codex/Sonnet/Claude's points
- ๐ด Codex: Challenges Gemini/Sonnet/Claude's points
- ๐ Claude: You challenge advisor points
5. Round 3:
- All four: Final positions
6. Synthesis with quality scores for each advisor
7. Present results with cost tracking
Quality Checklist
Before completing a debate, ensure:
- All rounds completed for all four participants (Gemini, Codex, Sonnet, Claude)
- Your independent analysis (Opus) written for each round (not just summaries)
- Synthesis.md includes all four perspectives
- Quality scores recorded for advisor responses
- Cost tracking updated (if in claude-octopus context)
- Results presented to user in chat
- Debate folder path provided to user
Integration with Other Skills
Document Delivery
Export debates to professional formats:
After debate completes:
"Would you like to export this debate to PPTX/DOCX/PDF? I can use the document-delivery skill to create a professional presentation."
Knowledge Mode
Debates can be used in knowledge mode workflows:
Knowledge mode "deliberate" phase โ Run /debate to get multiple perspectives
โ Use synthesis for final decision
Quality Gates for Responses
Each advisor response is scored before proceeding:
| Metric | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 25 pts | 50-1000 words (substantive but concise) |
| Citations | 25 pts | References, links, or sources present |
| Code Examples | 25 pts | Technical examples or code snippets |
| Engagement | 25 pts | Addresses other advisors' specific points |
Score >= 75: proceed. Score 50-74: proceed with warning. Score < 50: re-prompt for elaboration.
Cost Tracking
Typical costs (default word limits):
- Quick (1 round): $0.02 - $0.05
- Thorough (3 rounds): $0.10 - $0.20
- Adversarial (5 rounds): $0.25 - $0.50
Cost tracking integrates with ~/.claude-octopus/analytics/ logs.
Export
After debate completes, export results via document-delivery skill:
- PPTX: stakeholder presentations from synthesis
- DOCX: detailed documentation from full transcript
- PDF: archival with metadata (topic, participants, cost)
Attribution
- Original Skill: AI Debate Hub by wolverin0
- Version: v4.8
- Repository: https://github.com/wolverin0/claude-skills
- License: MIT
- Enhancements: Claude-Octopus integration (session-aware storage, quality gates, cost tracking, document export, four-way debate with Sonnet)
Ready to debate! Users can invoke with /debate <question> or natural language.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review