Debate Research#

Input Parameters#

Collect from user before starting. Only topic is required; all others have defaults.

ParamRequiredDefaultDescriptiontopicyes—Debate subjectrolesnoProponent + Opponent2-4 role objects: {name, stance, model?}. Default: Proponent (argue for) and Opponent (argue against). Model inherits from global.goalnoinferredWhat question to answeraudienceno"self"Who reads the report: self / team / publicdecision_typeno"personal-choice"personal-choice / team-standardization / market-analysisevidence_roundno"auto"false / true / auto (enable when topic is fact-dense)confirm_plannotrueShow plan and wait for user OK before executionmodelnoinheritGlobal subagent model; role-level override takes priorityoutput_pathnonullFile path for report; null = return in conversation

Implicit parameter: language — inferred from the user's topic/conversation language. All subagent prompts output in this language.

Example User Prompt#

• Claude Code vs OpenCode (gpt-5.4, claude-4.6-sonnet)

Execution Pipeline#

Phase 0 — Pre-flight#

Step 0a: Model reachability check

Collect all unique models (global + per-role + judge). For each unique model, probe via sessions_spawn with a minimal one-sentence task (e.g. "Reply OK") and model: <target>. Do NOT use curl or external HTTP — all models route through OpenClaw's provider config.

If any probe fails:

• If user explicitly specified the failed model → abort, report failure, suggest alternatives
• If model was default-assigned → warn user, fall back to session default model, continue

Step 0b: Plan presentation (if confirm_plan: true)

Present to user:

• Topic
• Role × model assignment table
• Evidence round: on/off/auto (with rationale if auto)
• Estimated subagent call count
• Goal / audience / decision_type interpretation

[STOP — wait for user confirmation]

If confirm_plan: false, skip directly to Phase 1.

Phase 1 — Stance Investigation (parallel)#

Spawn one subagent per role, all in parallel.

Each agent receives a prompt built from:

• Role name + stance
• Topic
• web_search: enabled

Required output format per agent:

text

Core arguments (3-5):
  - [argument] | confidence: 0.0-1.0 | source: [official-docs/community-feedback/personal-blog/academic-paper]
Opponent weaknesses (2-3)
Predicted counter-attacks (1-2)

Use sessions_spawn + sessions_yield to wait for all completions.

Error handling:

• Agent timeout → mark output [INCOMPLETE], continue pipeline

Phase 2 — Cross Rebuttal (parallel)#

Spawn one subagent per role, all in parallel.

Each agent receives:

• Its original stance
• All other roles' Phase 1 output (cross-injected)
• web_search: disabled

Required output format per agent:

text

Rebuttals (one per opponent argument):
  - [rebuttal] | confidence: 0.0-1.0
Weakest premise attack:
  - Identify opponent's single weakest assumption and challenge it  ← Socratic element
New attacks (2):
  - [attack]

Word limit: 300 × number_of_opponents words per agent.

Error handling:

• Agent timeout → mark [INCOMPLETE], continue

Phase 2.5 — Evidence Audit (optional)#

Triggered when evidence_round: true, or when auto and topic involves measurable claims. Auto-enable heuristic: topic contains performance benchmarks, cost comparisons, security assessments, market data, or quantitative metrics. When in doubt with auto, skip (false positive costs more than false negative).

Spawn 1 subagent as "evidence auditor":

• Input: all Phase 1 + Phase 2 output
• web_search: disabled
• Task: extract every factual claim, tag each as: [official-docs] [community-feedback] [personal-blog] [no-source] [exaggerated]
• Output: concise fact checklist

Phase 3 — Neutral Judgment#

Spawn 1 subagent as neutral judge:

• Input: Phase 1 + Phase 2 + Phase 2.5 (if available)
• web_search: disabled
• Weigh arguments by confidence scores AND source quality tags

Required output structure:

1. Strong arguments per side
2. Exaggerated claims per side
3. Shared limitations (problems neither option solves)
4. Core disagreements (value-level, not just factual)
5. Consensus points
6. Recommendation — explicit directional advice, adapted to decision_type
7. Open Questions — unresolved unknowns that could change the conclusion
8. Scenario selection matrix (table: scenario × recommendation × rationale)
9. One-sentence summary

Phase 4 — Report Assembly#

Orchestrator (main conversation) assembles all outputs into Markdown:

markdown

# [topic]: Debate Research Report

> **Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
> **Method**: Multi-agent structured debate (debate-research skill)
> **Roles**: [role1 (model)] | [role2 (model)] | ...
> **Audience**: [audience] | **Decision type**: [decision_type]
> **Completion**: [success | degraded-success | aborted]

## Core Arguments by Side
[Phase 1 output, organized by role]

## Cross Rebuttals
[Phase 2 output, organized by role]

## Evidence Audit
[Phase 2.5 output, or "Not requested"]

## Neutral Judgment
[Phase 3 sections 1-5]

## Recommendation
[Phase 3 section 6]

## Open Questions
[Phase 3 section 7]

## Scenario Matrix
[Phase 3 section 8]

> **One-line summary**: [Phase 3 section 9]

If output_path specified → write file. Otherwise → return in conversation.

Completion States#

StateConditionBehaviorsuccessAll phases completed normallyFull reportdegraded-success1+ agents timed out or returned [INCOMPLETE]Report with degradation noteabortedModel pre-check failed / user cancelled planNo report; return error summary

Prompt Templates#

See references/prompts.md for the exact prompt templates used in each phase. Orchestrator builds prompts dynamically from parameters + these templates.