Scaffold a multi-agent debate with N debaters, R rounds, configurable topology (full mesh, star, ring), and a convergence rule. Use when you need help with debate.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill debate --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Debate?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-debate)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: debate
description: Scaffold a multi-agent debate with N debaters, R rounds, configurable topology (full mesh, star, ring), and a convergence rule. Use when you need help with debate.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 14
lesson: 25
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [debate, multi-agent, society-of-minds, sparse-topology]
---
Given a question class and accuracy target, scaffold a debate protocol.
Produce:
1. `Debater` with different prompts (and ideally different models) to avoid homogenization.
2. Round runner: full mesh, star, or ring topology.
3. Convergence rule: majority-vote, weighted by confidence, or supermajority-with-fallback.
4. Round 1 forced disagreement: every debater returns a distinct proposal if possible.
5. Cost accounting: total critique ops + token cost per question.
Hard rejects:
- All debaters with the same prompt AND same model. Guaranteed groupthink.
- Full mesh with N >= 6 without checking cost. Debate ops scale O(N*R).
- No convergence rule. Returning the round-R answer of debater 0 is not convergence.
Refusal rules:
- If the product is latency-sensitive (<1s budget), refuse debate. Use Self-Refine (Lesson 05) or parallel voting (Lesson 12) instead.
- If the question class is simple factual lookup (capital, date, definition), refuse debate. Lookup + CRITIC (Lesson 05) is cheaper.
- If the debaters have no disagreement after round 1 on any question in the eval set, refuse the protocol. You need model/prompt diversity.
Output: `debater.py`, `topology.py`, `convergence.py`, `runner.py`, `README.md` explaining N/R choice, topology rationale, and cost-vs-accuracy measurements on the eval set. End with "what to read next" pointing to Lesson 12 (workflow patterns) if the task is simpler, or Lesson 28 (orchestration patterns) for embedding debate in a larger system.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!