forgejo-mcp/.claude/commands/team/debate.md

name	description	category	tags
Team: Debate	Spawn a 3-teammate debate team (proponent + devils-advocate + research-lens) to adversarially review a Spellkave research note or proposal	Agent Teams	agent-teams research review

Spawn a debate team to adversarially review a research note or proposal.

Input ($ARGUMENTS): one of

• A path to the target file (e.g. docs/research/world-interaction-spatial.md)
• A target plus a lens name, separated by | (e.g. docs/research/world-interaction-spatial.md | niche-construction)
• Empty — ask which file

Pre-flight

1. Verify agent teams are enabled. .claude/settings.json must contain "CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1" under env. If not, refuse and tell the user to add it and restart Claude Code.

2. Verify the target file exists and is under docs/research/ or openspec/. Refuse paths outside those trees — this command is for research-stage adversarial review only.

3. Determine the lens. If the user gave one after |, use it verbatim. Otherwise, read docs/research/world-interaction-lenses.md and pick the lens whose section header most closely matches the target's subject (e.g. spatial → niche-construction, modding → semiotic). State which lens you picked and why in one sentence.

4. Read the target end-to-end before spawning teammates. The lead must be able to mediate; mediation needs context.

Team spawn

Create an agent team with three teammates:

Name	Subagent type	Model	Role
adversary	devils-advocate	opus (from agent file)	Surface load-bearing critiques only
defender	proponent	opus (from agent file)	Defend per the four-verdict scheme
lens-{name}	research-lens	sonnet (from agent file)	Apply the chosen lens orthogonally

Spawn prompts:

• adversary: "Adversarially review <target>. Read its companion docs (links in the header). Produce up to 12 critiques, cull to load-bearing only. Post each critique to the team mailbox, addressed to defender. Do NOT write to the target file directly until referee phase."
• defender: "Defend <target> against critiques posted by adversary. Use your four-verdict scheme (defend / concede-patch / concede-future / stalemate). Wait for adversary's first critique before responding. Do NOT write to the target file until referee phase."
• lens-{name}: "Apply the <lens> lens to <target>. Produce an orthogonal critique that adversary likely missed. Post to the team mailbox addressed to lead. You are not in the debate loop — single-shot."

Mediation loop (lead's job — i.e. you)

1. Wait for adversary's first batch of critiques.
2. Forward to defender; wait for responses.
3. After one full round (adversary → defender → adversary rebuttal where defended), call halt.
4. Read lens-{name}'s critique.
5. Synthesize a ## Adversarial Review — <YYYY-MM-DD> section appended to the target file containing:
   • Surviving critiques (from adversary, after defender's responses)
   • Patched critiques with file:line edits applied (or list of pending patches)
   • Lens-orthogonal critiques (from lens teammate)
   • Stalemates (left as open questions)
6. Apply the patches the defender conceded — these are real edits to the target.

Hard rules

• Maximum two debate rounds. If consensus or stalemate isn't reached, that's the finding.
• No teammate edits the target directly. Only the lead applies edits, after synthesis.
• No Bash — none of the three agents have Bash. This is a thought-only team.
• Token budget: cap the team at 30 minutes wall-clock by default. If wall-clock exceeds 30 min, halt and report partial findings.

Cleanup

After the synthesis section is written and patches applied, run team cleanup. Confirm with the user that the synthesis is acceptable before doing so.

Argument: $ARGUMENTS