---
allowed-tools:
- Task
- TaskOutput
- TaskCreate
- TaskUpdate
- TaskList
- Read
- Grep
- Glob
argument-hint: <question or topic>
context: fork
description: 'Dialectic thinking for code and architecture decisions — spawn thesis
  and antithesis agents, verify claims against the codebase, then synthesize. Use
  when user says "debate", "argue both sides", "devil''s advocate", "pros and cons
  of approach", or wants a design decision stress-tested against actual code. For
  conceptual or logical claims without a codebase, use thinking-tools:dialectic instead.

  '
model: sonnet
name: debating-ideas
user-invocable: true
---

# Dialectic Debate

## `$ARGUMENTS` is the question or topic to debate

If no argument provided, ask the user what they want to evaluate.

Routing rule: if the user wants open-ended idea generation, option discovery, or "what could we build/do?", explicitly say this is open-ended brainstorming and route to `brainstorming-ideas` or an ideation workflow. Use this skill only when there is a specific design decision, thesis, or bounded trade-off to stress-test. If no clear opposing positions exist or evidence is unavailable, stop and ask for a sharper decision instead of inventing a debate.

**Use TaskCreate / TaskUpdate** to track these 4 phases:

1. Frame the debate
2. Spawn thesis + antithesis agents
3. Synthesize positions
4. Verify claims against code

## Phase 1: Frame the Debate

Parse the topic from `$ARGUMENTS`. Identify:

- **The core tension** — what are the two opposing positions?
- **Stakes** — what depends on getting this right?
- **Scope** — bound the debate to avoid sprawl

Frame as a clear binary or spectrum question. Examples:

- "Should we use microservices or a monolith for X?"
- "Is caching worth the complexity here?"
- "Should this be a library or an inline implementation?"

## Phase 2: Spawn Thesis + Antithesis (Parallel)

Spawn two Explore agents in a single message:

```
Task(
  subagent_type="Explore",
  run_in_background=true,
  description="Thesis: argue FOR",
  prompt="You are arguing FOR: {position A}.
  Topic: {framed question}

  Build the strongest possible case:
  1. Search the codebase for evidence supporting this position
  2. Identify concrete benefits with file:line references
  3. Anticipate and preempt counterarguments
  4. Rate your confidence (high/medium/low) with reasoning

  Be specific — cite code, patterns, and constraints you find.
  DO NOT hedge or present both sides. Argue your position fully."
)

Task(
  subagent_type="Explore",
  run_in_background=true,
  description="Antithesis: argue AGAINST",
  prompt="You are arguing AGAINST: {position A} (i.e., FOR {position B}).
  Topic: {framed question}

  Build the strongest possible case:
  1. Search the codebase for evidence supporting this position
  2. Identify concrete risks/costs of the opposing view with file:line references
  3. Anticipate and preempt counterarguments
  4. Rate your confidence (high/medium/low) with reasoning

  Be specific — cite code, patterns, and constraints you find.
  DO NOT hedge or present both sides. Argue your position fully."
)
```

## Phase 3: Synthesize

Collect both results:

```
TaskOutput(task_id=<thesis_id>, block=true)
TaskOutput(task_id=<antithesis_id>, block=true)
```

If either agent reports no codebase evidence, flag the debate as theory-only: "No code evidence found — debate is conceptual. Verdict confidence capped at low." Do not fabricate supporting code. Proceed with available evidence.

Synthesize into a structured verdict:

1. Where they agree — shared facts, common ground
2. Where they conflict — genuine disagreements with evidence
3. Weak arguments — flag claims that lack code evidence or rely on generalities
4. Verdict — which position has stronger grounding, and why
5. Conditions — when would the other position win instead?

## Phase 4: Verify Claims

For any factual claims made by either side (file references, pattern assertions, dependency claims):

- Read the cited files to confirm accuracy
- Flag any misrepresentations or hallucinated evidence
- Adjust verdict if verification changes the balance

## Output

```
DEBATE: {topic}
==============

Thesis: {position A}
  Confidence: {high/medium/low}
  Key evidence: {1-2 strongest points with file refs}

Antithesis: {position B}
  Confidence: {high/medium/low}
  Key evidence: {1-2 strongest points with file refs}

Verdict: {position} wins because {reason}
Caveat: {position} would win if {conditions}

Verified claims: {N}/{M} checked, {K} corrected
```

## Examples

```
/debating-ideas Should we split the API into microservices?
/debating-ideas Is it worth adding Redis caching to the auth flow?
/debating-ideas Monorepo vs polyrepo for our frontend packages
```

If the debate reaches no clear conclusion, present both positions with evidence and let the user decide.

Start Phase 1 with the topic from `$ARGUMENTS`.