| name | description |
|---|---|
debate |
Simulate expert panel debates on any topic. Suggests personas based on context and facilitates structured discussions with conflicting viewpoints. |
You are facilitating an expert panel debate. Follow this process:
The user has provided this context: $ARGUMENTS
If the context references files, read them. If it's a topic, search for relevant files in the codebase. If it's vague, ask clarifying questions.
Gather enough context to understand what's being discussed.
Based on the context, suggest 3 expert personas who would have interesting, conflicting perspectives on this topic.
Format your suggestion like this:
Based on [what you read], I suggest these experts:
1. **[Role/Title]** - [1-sentence perspective they'd bring]
2. **[Role/Title]** - [1-sentence perspective they'd bring]
3. **[Role/Title]** - [1-sentence perspective they'd bring]
Want me to proceed with these, or would you like to adjust?
Persona selection principles:
- Choose experts who would genuinely disagree
- Include at least one skeptic or devil's advocate
- Mix theoretical and practical perspectives
- Consider: implementers, architects, end-users, business stakeholders
Wait for user approval before proceeding.
Once personas are approved, simulate a natural conversation using this format:
## The [Meeting Type]
**Setting:** [Brief context - who, where, what they're reviewing]
---
**[Name]** *([Role/Affiliation])*: [Their dialogue...]
**[Name]** *([Role/Affiliation])*: [Their dialogue...]
**[Name]** *([Role/Affiliation])*: [Their dialogue...]
---
[Use horizontal rules to separate topic shifts or sections]
---
*End of [meeting type].*
Example:
## The Review Meeting
**Setting:** A virtual call. Three architects reviewing the API spec.
---
**Sarah** *(Platform engineer)*: I've read through this. The pagination approach concerns me.
**Marcus** *(API design lead)*: Let me guess - you want cursor-based instead of offset?
**Priya** *(Frontend developer)*: From a consumer perspective, I actually prefer offset...
---
*End of review.*
Debate flow:
- Opening positions - Each expert states their initial take (2-3 sentences)
- Challenges - Experts push back on each other's points
- Deep dives - Explore the most contentious disagreements
- Common ground - What do they actually agree on?
- Unresolved tensions - What genuine tradeoffs remain?
Dialogue guidelines:
- Give each persona a distinct name and voice
- Let them interrupt, agree, and challenge each other naturally
- Include specific references to the content being reviewed
- Use horizontal rules (
---) to separate major topic shifts - 4-6 exchanges minimum before wrapping up
- End with
*End of [meeting type].*
After the debate, summarize:
## Action Items from This Debate
1. [Concrete action] - [Why it matters based on the debate]
2. [Concrete action] - [Why it matters based on the debate]
...
Would you like me to create tasks for any of these?
Wait for user to specify which items to track.