You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
fix: harden debate prompts and fix consult model/flag issues (#226)
* fix: remove auto-generated header from adapter files
The `<!-- AUTO-GENERATED ... -->` HTML comment before frontmatter
prevented tools like agnix from parsing YAML frontmatter on line 1.
Removed the header entirely - the adapters/ directory is
self-explanatory. Drops agnix errors from 83 to 8.
* fix: apply debate findings and enhance analysis to consult and debate plugins
Debate skill hardened based on its own first debate's findings:
- Universal evidence standard for both proposer AND challenger
- Proposer prompts now require cited evidence (was challenger-only)
- Challenger follow-up reordered: anti-convergence guard first
- Minimum-disagreement requirement per round added
- Context summarization criteria specified (500-800 tokens)
- Rigor indicator and Debate Quality rating in synthesis output
Consult skill fixes from enhance analysis:
- Gemini section: added missing Session ID extraction line
- Codex: removed invalid -a suggest flag (codex exec doesn't support it)
- Codex: added -c model_reasoning_effort to safe command patterns
- Gemini models: replaced all -preview suffixes with stable names
Also updates README, test strategy doc, and all adapters.
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: adapters/opencode/skills/debate/SKILL.md
+29-31Lines changed: 29 additions & 31 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -26,6 +26,10 @@ Parse from `$ARGUMENTS`:
26
26
-**--model-proposer**: Specific model for proposer (optional)
27
27
-**--model-challenger**: Specific model for challenger (optional)
28
28
29
+
## Universal Rules
30
+
31
+
ALL participants (proposer AND challenger) MUST support claims with specific evidence (file path, code pattern, benchmark, or documented behavior). Unsupported claims from either side will be flagged by the other participant and noted in the verdict. This applies to every round.
32
+
29
33
## Prompt Templates
30
34
31
35
### Round 1: Proposer Opening
@@ -35,7 +39,9 @@ You are participating in a structured debate as the PROPOSER.
35
39
36
40
Topic: {topic}
37
41
38
-
Your job: Analyze this topic thoroughly and present your position. Be specific, cite concrete reasons, and consider tradeoffs. Do not hedge excessively - take a clear stance.
42
+
Your job: Analyze this topic thoroughly and present your position. Take a clear stance. Do not hedge excessively.
43
+
44
+
You MUST support each claim with specific evidence (file path, code pattern, benchmark, or documented behavior). Unsupported claims will be challenged. "I think" or "generally speaking" without evidence is not acceptable.
39
45
40
46
Provide your analysis:
41
47
```
@@ -60,6 +66,9 @@ Rules:
60
66
- Lead with what's WRONG or MISSING, then acknowledge what's right
61
67
- If you genuinely agree on a point, explain what RISK remains despite the agreement
62
68
- Propose at least one concrete alternative approach
69
+
- You MUST address at least these categories: correctness, security implications, and developer experience
70
+
- Do NOT agree with ANY claim unless you can cite specific evidence (file path, code pattern, or documented behavior) that supports the agreement. Unsupported agreement is not allowed.
71
+
- If the proposer makes a claim without evidence, call it out: "This claim is unsupported."
63
72
64
73
Provide your challenge:
65
74
```
@@ -81,8 +90,10 @@ The CHALLENGER ({challenger_tool}) raised these points in round {round-1}:
81
90
82
91
Your job: Address each challenge directly. For each point:
83
92
- If they're right, concede explicitly and explain how your position evolves
84
-
- If they're wrong, explain why with specific reasoning
85
-
- If it's a tradeoff, acknowledge the tradeoff and explain why you still favor your approach
93
+
- If they're wrong, explain why with specific evidence (file path, code pattern, benchmark, or documented behavior)
94
+
- If it's a tradeoff, acknowledge the tradeoff and explain why you still favor your approach with evidence
95
+
96
+
Every claim you make -- whether concession, rebuttal, or new argument -- MUST cite specific evidence. The challenger will reject unsupported claims.
86
97
87
98
Do NOT simply restate your original position. Your response must show you engaged with the specific challenges raised.
88
99
@@ -91,29 +102,7 @@ Provide your defense:
91
102
92
103
### Round 2+: Challenger Follow-up
93
104
94
-
```
95
-
You are the CHALLENGER in round {round} of a structured debate.
96
-
97
-
Topic: {topic}
98
-
99
-
{context_summary}
100
-
101
-
The PROPOSER ({proposer_tool}) responded to your challenges:
102
-
103
-
---
104
-
{proposer_previous_response}
105
-
---
106
-
107
-
Your job: Evaluate the proposer's defense. For each point they addressed:
108
-
- Did they adequately address your concern? If so, acknowledge it
109
-
- Did they dodge or superficially address it? Call it out specifically
110
-
- Are there NEW weaknesses in their revised position?
111
-
112
-
If you're genuinely convinced on a point, say so - but explain what convinced you.
113
-
If you see new problems, raise them.
114
-
115
-
Provide your follow-up:
116
-
```
105
+
*(JavaScript reference - not executable in OpenCode)*
0 commit comments