Structured Socratic debate for resolving ambiguities, trade-offs, and low-confidence decisions. Produces auditable thesis-antithesis-synthesis records with constitutional principle alignment. [EXPLICIT] Trigger: "debate", "ambiguity", "resolve conflict", "low confidence", "Socratic"
From jm-adknpx claudepluginhub javimontano/jm-adk-alfaThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
agents/guardian.mdagents/lead.mdagents/specialist.mdagents/support.mdevals/evals.jsonknowledge/body-of-knowledge.mdknowledge/knowledge-graph.mdprompts/meta.mdprompts/primary.mdprompts/variations/deep.mdprompts/variations/quick.mdtemplates/output.docx.mdtemplates/output.html"The unexamined decision is not worth implementing."
Formal mechanism for resolving ambiguities that have divergent implementation consequences. Runs a structured thesis → antithesis → counter-evidence → synthesis cycle, examines each option against constitutional principles, eliminates by contradiction, and produces a single answer with full rationale. Records debates in .specify/debates/ for auditability. Use when confidence < 0.95, requirements are ambiguous, or trade-offs have no obvious winner. [EXPLICIT]
.specify/debates/debate-YYYY-MM-DD-topic.md:
# Debate: {topic}
Date: {date}
Trigger: {what caused the debate}
Thesis: {position A}
Antithesis: {position B}
Evidence: {findings}
Constitutional Alignment: {principle mapping}
Synthesis: {final answer}
Confidence: {score}
Integrated Into: {ADR-NNN / plan / spec reference}
.specify/debates/| Anti-Pattern | Why It's Bad | Do This Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Skipping the antithesis | Confirmation bias — you only validate your assumption | Always generate the strongest opposing position |
| Debating without evidence | Opinions are not decisions | Ground every position in code, config, or documentation |
| Closing at < 0.95 | Unresolved ambiguity propagates downstream | Keep debating or escalate to user |
| Not recording the debate | Future decisions lose context | Always write to .specify/debates/ |
| Debating trivial choices | Overhead without value | Only debate when implementation consequences diverge |
trade-off-analysis — Weighted decision matrices for architecture choicesscenario-analysis — Multi-scenario comparison with scoringrequirements-engineering — When the ambiguity is in requirements, not solutionsintegrity-chain-validation — Debates may reveal integrity chain gapsExample invocations:
| Scenario | Handling |
|---|---|
| Empty or minimal input | Request clarification before proceeding |
| Conflicting requirements | Flag conflicts explicitly, propose resolution |
| Out-of-scope request | Redirect to appropriate skill or escalate |
Searches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.