Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From test-writing
Debates PHPUnit unit test review findings peer-to-peer in Agent Teams waves via SendMessage, refining stances through challenges, concessions, and justifications for final output.
npx claudepluginhub shopwarelabs/ai-coding-tools --plugin test-writingHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/test-writing:phpunit-unit-test-debatingThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Peer-to-peer debate of review findings within a single Agent Teams wave. You debate directly with co-reviewers via SendMessage, then produce your final stance.
Defends PHPUnit unit test review findings against adversary challenges in team review defense round, evaluating consensus challenges, resurrections, new findings, and producing updated stance.
Performs symmetric two-AI peer reviews using OpenAI Codex CLI: independent blind reviews followed by structured per-issue debate for plans, code reviews, architecture, and recommendations.
Resolves stuck review findings via a structured put-up-or-concede exchange after arbitration. Enforces decided points, accepts concrete evidence to reopen.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Peer-to-peer debate of review findings within a single Agent Teams wave. You debate directly with co-reviewers via SendMessage, then produce your final stance.
Provided in spawn prompt by team-lead:
own_findings: your findings from Wave 0 (reviewing skill output)peer_findings: findings from co-reviewers on shared filesco_reviewers: list of co-reviewer names and shared filesLoad debate-rules.md.
For each file, compare own findings against peer findings:
For challenges: call mcp__plugin_test-writing_test-rules__get_rules(ids={rule_id}) to load the detection algorithm. Apply it against the code. If the peer is right, prepare concession instead.
For each co-reviewer, send ONE message via SendMessage(to: "{co_reviewer_name}") covering all shared files. Use the debate message format from output-format.md:
After sending, wait for co-reviewer responses.
If you received challenges from co-reviewers in round 1:
Send ONE response per co-reviewer. Then proceed to Phase 3.
If no challenges were received, or all challenges are conceded, skip round 2.
Produce final stance per file using the format from output-format.md:
This is your output. Return it to the lead.
If a co-reviewer does not respond to your round 1 message, produce final stance from your own analysis and whatever peer findings you received in the input. Do not block.
If mcp__plugin_test-writing_test-rules__get_rules is unavailable, you cannot verify detection algorithms. Concede peer findings you cannot verify and note the limitation in your final stance.