「debate」の検索結果

Conversation patterns and interaction protocols for multi-agent systems. Covers request/response, pub/sub, blackboard, delegation chains, debate, critique, consensus, fan-out/fan-in, supervisor-worker, and peer negotiation. Deep analysis of AutoGen conversation patterns, CrewAI delegation, LangGraph state passing, and FIPA-ACL performatives. Teaches how to design what agents say to each other and in what order. Activate on: "agent conversation", "agent protocol", "multi-agent debate", "agent delegation", "supervisor worker pattern", "agent voting", "consensus protocol", "fan-out fan-in", "agent negotiation", "blackboard pattern", "agent dialogue", "conversation topology", "agent handoff". NOT for: wire format or serialization (use agent-interchange-formats), orchestration infrastructure (use agentic-infrastructure-2026), single agent behavior (use agentic-patterns).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Multi-agent brainstorming: async opinion collision with expert personas. Mixed Codex/Claude Code engine. Use when multiple AI agents need to collaboratively discuss, debate, and converge on solutions through structured dialog. Triggers: brainstorm, multi-perspective discussion, opinion collision, expert debate, war room, collective intelligence, 头脑风暴, 多视角讨论, 集思广益.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Debate multi-agente: 2-4 perspectivas (PM, Arquiteto, QA, Security) debatem decisao tecnica. Output: decisao + rationale + dissenting opinions → ADR. Inspirado no Party Mode do BMAD-METHOD.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Multi-agent debate orchestration for Architecture Decision Records. Automatically triggers on ADR create/edit/delete. Coordinates architect, critic, independent-thinker, security, analyst, and high-level-advisor agents in structured debate rounds until consensus.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

This skill should be used when the user wants to "stress-test a design", "challenge an idea", "red team a proposal", "get critical feedback on a design", "validate a design", "adversarial architecture review", "risk assessment", "設計を検証して", "反論をもらいたい", "設計を批判的にレビュー", "デビルズアドボケート", "ストレステスト", "弱点を指摘して", "穴を見つけて", "この設計で良いか", "リスク評価", "設計のアーキテクチャレビュー", or mentions structured adversarial review of a proposal or design. NOTE: Use this for validating PROPOSALS and DESIGNS through adversarial debate, NOT for generic code review, PR review, or normal review requests (use /codex:review or /codex:adversarial-review for those). Also NOT for investigating unknown bugs (use /agent-dialectics:strong-inference for that).

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', 'adversarial plan', 'hostile planning', 'cross-critique plan', '하이퍼플랜', '적대적 계획', '교차 비평'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

When the user wants multiple expert perspectives on a marketing question — a simulated board of advisors staffed by legendary marketers (Seth Godin, David Ogilvy, Eugene Schwartz, April Dunford, Rory Sutherland, Alex Hormozi, Byron Sharp, and more). Also use when the user mentions 'marketing council,' 'board of advisors,' 'advisory board,' 'what would Seth Godin say,' 'what would Ogilvy think,' 'channel Hormozi,' 'get multiple perspectives,' 'debate this,' 'have the council review,' 'marketing mentors,' or asks how a famous marketer would approach their problem. The council gives each advisor's take through their documented frameworks, surfaces where they disagree, and synthesizes a recommendation. For executing the winning direction, hand off to positioning, offers, copywriting, ads, or the relevant skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Adversarial analysis deploying parallel expert agents to stress-test ideas, strategies, and plans — decomposes into atomic claims, attacks them, then steelmans and counter-argues, producing severity-ranked findings with remediation. USE WHEN red team, attack idea, counterarguments, critique, stress test, devil's advocate, find weaknesses, break this, poke holes, strongest objection. NOT FOR collaborative debate to find best path (use Council).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Have the Claude and GPT partners critique each other's answers across a configurable number of rounds (default 1) before converging on a synthesis. Use when the user wants the two perspectives stress-tested against each other, not just shown side by side.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide", "multi-agent decision", "stress-test this and decide", "monte um juri", "tribunal de agentes", "painel para decidir". Do NOT use to only critique without deciding (use the-fool for that), to build a plan or write the solution itself, or for simple factual lookups.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Break through stagnation with lateral thinking personas — single or multi-persona debate

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple angles.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run a structured 5-day process to prototype, test, and validate product ideas with real users. Use when the user mentions "design sprint", "validate before we build", "rapid prototype", "test with users", or "should we build this". Also trigger when a team is stuck in endless debate over a high-stakes product decision, or wants to de-risk a costly idea before investing in development. Covers mapping, sketching, deciding, prototyping, and testing across Monday-Friday. For ongoing experimentation and MVPs, see lean-startup. For customer job analysis, see jobs-to-be-done. For non-leading user interviews, see mom-test.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

哈耶克 × 米塞斯 × Claude 三人对话。奥派经济学视角的多角色讨论。 触发方式：/dbs-chatroom-austrian、/chatroom-austrian、/奥派、「奥派聊天室」 Austrian economics chatroom. Hayek × Mises × Claude debate. Trigger: /dbs-chatroom-austrian, /chatroom-austrian, /奥派, "Austrian chat"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Compare independent opinions from several models or contexts without inflating agreement. Use when: wanting a second opinion or debate, or summarizing several reviewers' results.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Prepares statistical reports for clinical trials following CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT 2025, ICH E9(R1) estimands, and FDA 2023 covariate adjustment guidance. Covers Table 1 generation, analysis populations (ITT/FAS/PP/Safety), the 5 ICH E9(R1) intercurrent-event strategies, MMRM under MAR (mmrm), reference-based MI (rbmi J2R/CR/CIR), Permutt tipping-point sensitivity, and Rubin's-rules vs frequentist variance debate. Use when preparing regulatory submissions, defining estimands, or implementing missing-data sensitivity analyses.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Implements missing-data sensitivity analyses for confirmatory clinical trials including MMRM under MAR (with Kenward-Roger correction), reference-based multiple imputation (J2R, CR, CIR, LMCF per Carpenter-Roger 2013), Permutt delta-adjustment / tipping-point analysis, pattern-mixture identifying restrictions (CCMV, NCMV, ACMV), and the Cro vs Bartlett variance debate. Use when handling missing primary or secondary endpoint data in regulatory submissions following NRC 2010 and ICH E9(R1).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

5 expert personas debate proposed changes before implementation. Catches architectural, security, performance, and UX issues early. Use before major features or risky changes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when coordinating multiple AI agents with Agent Relay's workflow engine and need to pick the right orchestration pattern - covers the 10 core patterns (fan-out, pipeline, hub-spoke, consensus, mesh, handoff, cascade, dag, debate, hierarchical) plus 14 specialized ones, with decision framework and accurate SDK/YAML examples.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

When the user wants multiple expert perspectives on a marketing question — a simulated board of advisors staffed by legendary marketers (Seth Godin, David Ogilvy, Eugene Schwartz, April Dunford, Rory Sutherland, Alex Hormozi, Byron Sharp, and more). Also use when the user mentions 'marketing council,' 'board of advisors,' 'advisory board,' 'what would Seth Godin say,' 'what would Ogilvy think,' 'channel Hormozi,' 'get multiple perspectives,' 'debate this,' 'have the council review,' 'marketing mentors,' or asks how a famous marketer would approach their problem. The council gives each advisor's take through their documented frameworks, surfaces where they disagree, and synthesizes a recommendation. For executing the winning direction, hand off to positioning, offers, copywriting, ads, or the relevant skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Select and configure a structured discussion protocol matched to the purpose, topic, and group readiness. Use when planning classroom discussions, Socratic seminars, or structured debate.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when user asks for a sequenced learning path within a Buddhist tradition — 学修次第, 先学什么, 从哪入门, 下一步读什么, curriculum, 学习计划, 路径推荐. Differs from /compare-masters (parallel opinion) and /master-debate (adversarial dialectic) by being 纵向 / 时序: stage-by-stage plan keyed on tradition × level (L0-L3) → foundation → intermediate → advanced + blind spots. Trigger is planning intent — "禅宗对比" goes to /compare-masters; "禅宗从哪开始学" goes here.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Compare independent opinions from several models or contexts without inflating agreement. Use when: wanting a second opinion or debate, or summarizing several reviewers' results.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。