mcpField
M
multi-agent-debate

multi-agent-debate

github.com/fudesign2008Agent workflows677 installsUpdated 1d ago
Repository

About multi-agent-debate

multi-agent-debate is an agent skill for testing a hypothesis through independent Defender, Challenger, and Evidence Hunter roles. It separates evidence collection from inference and leaves disputes unresolved when direct evidence is unavailable.

Key features

  1. 01Parallel Defender, Challenger, and Evidence Hunter roles
  2. 02Evidence tags for claims and conclusions
  3. 03Triage facts, disputes, and new evidence
  4. 04Resolve disputes using files, code, or commands
  5. 05Structured conclusion format

Use cases

  1. 01Check a hypothesis against independent agent reviews
  2. 02Separate verified facts from inferences
  3. 03Find evidence that can settle a disputed claim

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/fudesign2008/open-skills --skill multi-agent-debate

After installing, type/multi-agent-debatein Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesREFERENCE.md

Details

From the project README

Multi-Agent Debate

Core rule: Reasoning disputes cannot be resolved by more reasoning. Only evidence arbitrates.

Quick Start

  1. Write your hypothesis in one paragraph
  2. List existing evidence (each with source: file, line, or command)
  3. Identify 2–3 weakest links in your analysis
  4. Fill in the three prompts below and launch in parallel
task(subagent_type="explore",  run_in_background=true, prompt="[DEFENDER]...")
task(subagent_type="oracle",   run_in_background=true, prompt="[CHALLENGER]...")
task(subagent_type="explore",  run_in_background=true, prompt="[EVIDENCE HUNTER]...")

Why separate prompts? Each agent must be blind to the others' goals — if the Challenger sees the Defender's framing, it anchors on the same assumptions it's supposed to attack. Fill in each prompt from REFERENCE.md independently.

Minimal prompt structure (fill in <...>):

DEFENDER:   "You are the DEFENDER for: <hypothesis>. Find direct physical evidence
             (file:line, command output, code) for each claim. List the 3 weakest
             points and collect pre-emptive counter-evidence."

CHALLENGER: "You are the CHALLENGER for: <hypothesis>. Find holes: alternative
             explanations, single-sample claims, inferences used as facts. For
             every alternative you propose, provide how to falsify it."

HUNTER:     "Find facts only — no inference. Answer: <2-3 specific questions from
             disputed claims>. Every answer must be a command output or code verbatim.
             Tag each: [SUPPORTS] / [CHALLENGES] / [NEUTRAL]."

Three Roles

RoleGoalAgent Type
DefenderFind strongest evidence for the hypothesisexplore
ChallengerFind holes, alternative explanations, single-sample claimsoracle
Evidence HunterFind new facts only — no inference allowedexplore

5-Step Flow

  1. Prepare — hypothesis + evidence list + 2-3 weakest links
  2. Launch — all three agents in parallel (run_in_background=true)
  3. Triage — split results into: agreed facts / disputed claims / new evidence
  4. Arbitrate — for each dispute, find a command/file/code that directly resolves it; if only reasoning exists, mark [UNRESOLVED]
  5. Conclude — write only what has physical evidence; disputed items stay pending

Conclusion Format

### Confirmed Facts [FACT:source]
### Reasonable Inferences [INFERENCE]
### Unresolved Disputes — verification method needed
### Corrected Mistakes — original → corrected | evidence

Evidence Tags

[FACT:file:line] · [FACT:cmd] · [FACT:N samples] · [INFERENCE] · [SPECULATION] · [UNRESOLVED]

No bare claims in conclusions. Every statement needs a tag.

See REFERENCE.md for full prompt templates with examples, common traps, arbitration decision tree, and evidence priority rules.

Comments

Markdown supported