Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From draft-review-kit
Orchestrates multi-round deliberation between reviewer agents who challenge each other's perspectives until tensions resolve or reach stalemate. Use for high-stakes drafts where you want proposals and compromises, not just synthesized feedback.
npx claudepluginhub everyinc/draft-review-kit --plugin draft-review-kitHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/draft-review-kit:debateThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Orchestrate a structured deliberation between reviewer agents. Reviewers don't just give feedback in parallel—they engage with each other's perspectives, challenge each other's recommendations, and work toward resolution (or acknowledged stalemate).
Convenes a panel of reviewer agents to analyze a draft from multiple perspectives, then synthesizes their feedback into consensus findings, tensions, and prioritized recommendations.
Critiques complete or near-complete essays with severity-ranked feedback capped at 600 words. Opens with top fix, weaves in strengths, closes with simulated social media reactions.
Orchestrates multi-agent debates with 2-5 dynamic agents in Challenge (select best variant), Strategy (deep analysis with proposals), or Critic (find weaknesses) modes. Triggers on debate, challenge, compare, critique prompts.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Orchestrate a structured deliberation between reviewer agents. Reviewers don't just give feedback in parallel—they engage with each other's perspectives, challenge each other's recommendations, and work toward resolution (or acknowledged stalemate).
| Use | When |
|---|---|
/panel | You want multiple perspectives synthesized. Fast. Tensions surfaced for you to decide. |
/debate | You want reviewers to actually argue it out. More thorough. Tensions may resolve through deliberation. |
Choose /debate when:
Choose /panel when:
Same as /panel—all reviewers analyze the draft independently.
The moderator identifies tensions and sends challenges to involved reviewers:
## Challenge: The fishing gear paragraph
**The passage:**
> "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s..."
**hemingway said:**
> "47 words that could be 15. Cut it."
**sedaris said:**
> "This is the most alive moment in the piece. Keep every word."
---
**hemingway:** sedaris argues the specificity earns its place. How do you respond?
**sedaris:** hemingway argues this slows momentum. How do you respond?
Reviewers respond in character. They may:
For each tension:
The moderator may run additional rounds if proposals generate new discussion, but caps at 4 rounds.
Read the draft and .status.yaml:
Same as /panel—propose 4-6 reviewers based on context.
## Proposed Panel for Debate
**Draft:** [title]
**Context:** [piece_type] for [audience], [stage]
| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
**Note:** Debate works best with reviewers who have natural tensions.
Consider including pairs like:
- hemingway + sedaris (economy vs. specificity)
- mom + hitchcock (clarity vs. mystery)
- sorkin + vonnegut (speed vs. depth)
Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
Wait for user confirmation.
Spawn all reviewers in parallel. Collect outputs.
Analyze outputs for conflicts. For each significant tension:
Spawn challenged reviewers with the challenge context.
Each reviewer responds to their challenge:
Determine resolution status. If proposals warrant further discussion, run another round (max 4 total).
Return the debate-moderator's synthesis:
Debate is most valuable when the panel includes natural tensions:
| Pairing | Tension Type | Good For |
|---|---|---|
| hemingway + sedaris | Economy vs. Specificity | Deciding what earns its length |
| mom + hitchcock | Clarity vs. Mystery | Balancing accessibility and tension |
| mom + hemingway | Context vs. Brevity | What explanation is necessary |
| sorkin + sedaris | Momentum vs. Observation | Pacing of descriptive passages |
| sorkin + vonnegut | Speed vs. Depth | When to slow for character |
| asshole + sedaris | Rigor vs. Voice | Tone of argument pieces |
Recommendation: Include at least one natural tension pair in your panel.
User: /debate
Agent: I'll run a deliberation on your draft. Let me read it and propose a panel.
[Reads draft]
[Reads .status.yaml: piece_type: essay, audience: general, stage: revision]
## Proposed Panel for Debate
**Draft:** father-and-the-sea
**Context:** personal essay for general audience, revision stage
| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **hemingway** | Check economy—personal essays can get overwritten |
| **sedaris** | Find the specific, human, funny moments |
| **sorkin** | Verify pacing through emotional beats |
| **mom** | General audience accessibility check |
**Natural tensions:** hemingway/sedaris (economy vs. specificity),
sorkin/sedaris (momentum vs. observation)
Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
User: yes
Agent: Running Round 1—each reviewer analyzing independently.
[Spawns 4 reviewers in parallel]
[Collects outputs]
Round 1 complete. Analyzing for tensions.
## Tensions Identified
### Tension 1: The tackle box paragraph
**hemingway** wants to cut; **sedaris** wants to keep every word.
### Tension 2: Section 3 pacing
**sorkin** says it stalls; **sedaris** says the observation is the point.
### Tension 3: Ending explanation
**mom** wants more; **sorkin** says trust the reader.
Proceeding to Round 2 with 3 challenges.
[Spawns challenged reviewers with challenge context]
[Collects responses]
## Round 2 Responses
**Tension 1:**
- hemingway: HOLD — "Momentum matters more than any single detail."
- sedaris: PROPOSE — "Keep 'museum of failures' and the pug. Cut the Reagan line."
**Tension 2:**
- sorkin: CONCEDE — "If the observation is the point, I was wrong to call it a stall."
- sedaris: (no concession needed)
**Tension 3:**
- mom: HOLD — "I still don't know what he learned. That's a real gap."
- sorkin: PROPOSE — "One specific image of the lesson. Not explanation—scene."
Proceeding to final synthesis.
## Debate Synthesis
**Panel:** hemingway, sedaris, sorkin, mom
**Rounds:** 2
**Context:** personal essay for general audience, revision stage
---
### Resolved Tensions
**Section 3 pacing**
> [The observation passage]
**Resolution:** Sorkin conceded. The slow pace is intentional and earns its place.
**Recommendation:** Keep as-is. The observation is the point.
---
### Stalemates
*None—all tensions reached resolution or proposal.*
---
### Proposals
**The tackle box paragraph**
> "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s,
> a reel that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught
> anything but his own thumb."
**Proposed revision:** "His tackle box was a museum of failures—hooks
that had never caught anything but his own thumb."
**Proposed by:** sedaris (compromise with hemingway)
**Would satisfy:** Keeps the voice and "museum" metaphor, cuts the catalog
**Trade-off:** Loses the temporal sweep ("'70s," "Reagan")
---
**The ending**
**Proposed revision:** Add one concrete image showing what you learned,
rather than explaining it.
**Proposed by:** sorkin (compromise with mom)
**Would satisfy:** Mom gets clarity; sorkin keeps momentum
**Trade-off:** Requires writing new material
---
### Consensus Findings
| Issue | Flagged By | Recommendation |
|-------|------------|----------------|
| Opening is slow | hemingway, sorkin | Start on the boat |
| "He taught me everything" unearned | all | Show, don't declare |
---
### The Deliberation Summary
**Resolved:** 1 tension resolved through concession
**Stalemates:** 0
**Proposals:** 2 compromise options for your consideration
---
### The Hard Question
> The debate kept circling one thing: you're telling us the relationship
> mattered without showing us what made it irreplaceable. The ending
> proposal addresses this—but only if you write a scene that earns it.
Debate is more expensive than panel:
| Phase | Approximate Tokens |
|---|---|
| Round 1: Initial reviews | 4-6 reviewers × ~8K = 32-48K |
| Round 2: Challenges | 3-4 tensions × 2 reviewers × ~4K = 24-32K |
| Round 3: Responses | Same reviewers × ~3K = 18-24K |
| Round 4: Resolution (if needed) | ~10K |
| Synthesis | ~8K |
| Total | ~90-120K tokens |
For high-stakes pieces, worth it. For routine editing, use /panel.
If a reviewer fails to spawn:
If no tensions identified:
If a reviewer doesn't respond to challenge:
If debate goes circular:
/panel and /debate share infrastructure:
The difference:
/panel → synthesizer (one pass, tensions surfaced)/debate → moderator (multiple rounds, tensions engaged)A natural workflow: run /panel first for quick feedback, then /debate on specific tensions if you want them argued out.
[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]