Multi-role debate to explore trade-offs | cook-en

Stats

Actions

Tags

Multi-role debate to explore trade-offs | cook-en

Multi-role debate to explore trade-offs

A command that allows roles with different expertise to discuss and examine trade-offs to derive optimal solutions.

Usage

/role-debate <Role 1>,<Role 2> [Topic]
/role-debate <Role 1>,<Role 2>,<Role 3> [Topic]

Basic Examples

# Security vs Performance trade-off
/role-debate security,performance
"JWT Token Expiry Setting"

# Usability vs Security balance
/role-debate frontend,security
"2-Factor Authentication UX Optimization"

# Technology selection discussion
/role-debate architect,mobile
"React Native vs Flutter Selection"

# Three-party debate
/role-debate architect,security,performance
"Pros and Cons of Microservices"

Basic Principles of Debate

Constructive Debate Guidelines

Mutual Respect: Respect the expertise and perspectives of other roles
Fact-Based: Debate based on data and evidence, not emotional reactions
Solution-Oriented: Aim for better solutions rather than criticizing for criticism's sake
Implementation-Focused: Consider feasibility rather than idealism

Quality Requirements for Arguments

Official Documentation: Reference standards, guidelines, and official documentation
Empirical Cases: Specific citations of success or failure cases
Quantitative Evaluation: Comparisons using numbers and metrics whenever possible
Time-Series Consideration: Evaluation of short-term, medium-term, and long-term impacts

Debate Ethics

Honesty: Acknowledge the limits of your expertise
Openness: Flexibility toward new information and perspectives
Transparency: Explicitly state judgment grounds and assumptions
Accountability: Mention implementation risks of proposals

Debate Process

Phase 1: Initial Position Statement

Each role independently expresses opinions from their professional perspective

Presentation of recommendations
Explicit citation of standards and documents as grounds
Explanation of anticipated risks and issues
Definition of success metrics

Phase 2: Mutual Discussion & Rebuttal

Cross-discussion between roles

Constructive rebuttal of other roles' proposals
Identification of overlooked perspectives
Clarification of trade-offs
Presentation of alternatives

Phase 3: Search for Compromises

Exploration of implementable solutions

Evaluation of the importance of each perspective
Consideration of win-win solutions
Step-by-step implementation approach
Consideration of risk mitigation measures

Phase 4: Integrated Conclusion

Determining final recommendations

Agreed-upon solution
Implementation roadmap
Success metrics and measurement methods
Future review points

Output Format Examples

For 2-Role Debate

Role Debate: Security vs Performance
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Topic: JWT Token Expiry Setting

Security Role's Argument:
"15-minute short expiry recommended"

Grounds:
- Compliance with OWASP JWT Security Cheat Sheet
- Minimizing damage window in case of token leakage
- Limiting attacker available time

Concerns:
- Long expiry exponentially increases attack risk
- Short expiry mandatory for financial compliance

Success Metrics:
- Security incident rate < 0.1%
- Average attack detection time < 5 minutes

Performance Role's Rebuttal:
"2-hour expiry recommended"

Grounds:
- Reference to Google OAuth 2.0 Best Practices
- Avoiding increased server load from frequent reauthentication
- Minimizing user experience disruption

Concerns:
- 15-minute reauthentication increases API load by 8x
- Frequent disconnections in mobile environments

Success Metrics:
- Maintain API response time < 200ms
- Server CPU usage < 60%

Mutual Discussion:
Security → Performance:
"Business losses from security breaches are greater than server load.
Example: Equifax breach cost $700 million"

Performance → Security:
"Both can be achieved with refresh token mechanism.
Background updates ensure security without compromising UX"

Security → Performance:
"Refresh tokens are also attack targets. Proper implementation is prerequisite"

Performance → Security:
"Propose phased approach. 30 minutes for normal operations, 15 minutes for sensitive operations"

Compromise Search:
Common Understanding:
- Need to balance user experience and security
- Flexible response based on risk level
- Practical consideration of implementation and operational costs

Win-Win Elements:
- Utilization of refresh token mechanism
- Phased introduction of risk-based authentication
- Complementation with auto-logout function

Integrated Conclusion:
"30-minute expiry + refresh token + risk-based authentication"

Implementation Details:
1. Access token: 30-minute expiry
2. Refresh token: 7-day expiry
3. High-risk operations: Enforce reauthentication every 15 minutes
4. Auto-logout after 30 minutes of inactivity

Phased Implementation:
Weeks 1-2: Basic 30-minute token implementation
Weeks 3-4: Add refresh token mechanism
Month 2: Introduce risk-based authentication

Success Metrics:
- Security: Incident rate < 0.1%
- Performance: API load increase < 20%
- UX: User satisfaction > 85%

Future Review:
- After 3 months: Evaluate actual attack patterns and load conditions
- After 6 months: Consider migration to more sophisticated risk-based authentication

For 3-Role Debate

Role Debate: Architect vs Security vs Performance
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Topic: Pros and Cons of Microservices

Architect Role's Argument:
"Phased microservices recommended"
Grounds: Clear domain boundaries, independent deployment, freedom in technology selection

Security Role's Concerns:
"Security complexity of inter-service communication"
Grounds: Management costs of API Gateway, mTLS, distributed authentication

Performance Role's Concerns:
"Latency increase due to network communication"
Grounds: N+1 problem from internal API calls, distributed transactions

Three-Party Discussion:
Architect → Security: "Can be controlled through centralized API Gateway management"
Security → Architect: "Risk of single point of failure"
Performance → Architect: "Service division granularity is important"
...(discussion continues)

Integrated Conclusion:
"Domain-driven design for phased division + security-first design"

Effective Debate Patterns

Technology Selection

/role-debate architect,performance
"Database Selection: PostgreSQL vs MongoDB"

/role-debate frontend,mobile
"UI Framework: React vs Vue"

/role-debate security,architect
"Authentication Method: JWT vs Session Cookie"

Design Decisions

/role-debate security,frontend
"User Authentication UX Design"

/role-debate performance,mobile
"Data Synchronization Strategy Optimization"

/role-debate architect,qa
"Test Strategy and Architecture Design"

Trade-off Issues

/role-debate security,performance
"Encryption Level vs Processing Speed"

/role-debate frontend,performance
"Rich UI vs Page Loading Speed"

/role-debate mobile,security
"Convenience vs Data Protection Level"

Role-Specific Debate Characteristics

🔒 Security Role

debate_stance:
  - Conservative approach (risk minimization)
  - Compliance-focused (cautious about deviations from standards)
  - Worst-case scenario assumption (attacker perspective)
  - Long-term impact focus (security as technical debt)

typical_issues:
  - "Security vs Convenience" trade-offs
  - "Mandatory compliance requirements"
  - "Attack cost vs Defense cost comparison"
  - "Thorough privacy protection"

evidence_sources:
  - OWASP guidelines
  - NIST frameworks
  - Industry standards (ISO 27001, SOC 2)
  - Actual attack cases and statistics

debate_strengths:
  - Precision in risk assessment
  - Knowledge of regulatory requirements
  - Understanding of attack methods

potential_biases:
  - Excessive conservatism (inhibiting innovation)
  - Insufficient UX consideration
  - Downplaying implementation costs

⚡ Performance Role

debate_stance:
  - Data-driven decisions (measurement-based)
  - Efficiency-focused (optimizing cost-effectiveness)
  - User experience priority (perceived speed focus)
  - Continuous improvement (phased optimization)

typical_issues:
  - "Performance vs Security"
  - "Optimization cost vs effectiveness ROI"
  - "Current vs future scalability"
  - "User experience vs system efficiency"

evidence_sources:
  - Core Web Vitals metrics
  - Benchmark results and statistics
  - Impact data on user behavior
  - Industry performance standards

debate_strengths:
  - Quantitative evaluation ability
  - Bottleneck identification
  - Knowledge of optimization techniques

potential_biases:
  - Downplaying security
  - Insufficient maintainability consideration
  - Premature optimization

🏗️ Architect Role

debate_stance:
  - Long-term perspective (consideration for system evolution)
  - Balance pursuit (overall optimization)
  - Phased changes (risk management)
  - Standard compliance (preference for proven patterns)

typical_issues:
  - "Short-term efficiency vs long-term maintainability"
  - "Technical debt vs development speed"
  - "Microservices vs monolith"
  - "New technology adoption vs stability"

evidence_sources:
  - Architecture pattern collections
  - Design principles (SOLID, DDD)
  - Large-scale system cases
  - Technology evolution trends

debate_strengths:
  - Overall perspective ability
  - Knowledge of design patterns
  - Prediction of long-term impacts

potential_biases:
  - Excessive generalization
  - Conservatism toward new technologies
  - Insufficient understanding of implementation details

🎨 Frontend Role

debate_stance:
  - User-centered design (UX first priority)
  - Inclusive approach (diversity consideration)
  - Intuitiveness focus (minimizing learning costs)
  - Accessibility standards (WCAG compliance)

typical_issues:
  - "Usability vs Security"
  - "Design consistency vs platform optimization"
  - "Functionality vs simplicity"
  - "Performance vs rich experience"

evidence_sources:
  - UX research and usability test results
  - Accessibility guidelines
  - Design system standards
  - User behavior data

debate_strengths:
  - Representation of user perspective
  - Knowledge of design principles
  - Accessibility requirements

potential_biases:
  - Insufficient understanding of technical constraints
  - Downplaying security requirements
  - Underestimation of performance impact

📱 Mobile Role

debate_stance:
  - Platform specialization (considering iOS/Android differences)
  - Context adaptation (on-the-go, one-handed operation)
  - Resource constraints (battery, memory, communication)
  - Store compliance (review guidelines)

typical_issues:
  - "Native vs cross-platform"
  - "Offline support vs real-time synchronization"
  - "Battery efficiency vs functionality"
  - "Platform unification vs optimization"

evidence_sources:
  - iOS HIG / Android Material Design
  - App Store / Google Play guidelines
  - Mobile UX research
  - Device performance statistics

debate_strengths:
  - Understanding of mobile-specific constraints
  - Knowledge of platform differences
  - Touch interface design

potential_biases:
  - Insufficient understanding of web platform
  - Downplaying server-side constraints
  - Insufficient consideration for desktop environment

🔍 Analyzer Role

debate_stance:
  - Evidence-focused (data-first)
  - Hypothesis verification (scientific approach)
  - Structural thinking (system thinking)
  - Bias elimination (objectivity pursuit)

typical_issues:
  - "Correlation vs causation"
  - "Symptomatic treatment vs root solution"
  - "Distinction between hypothesis and fact"
  - "Short-term symptoms vs structural problems"

evidence_sources:
  - Measured data and log analysis
  - Statistical methods and analysis results
  - System thinking theory
  - Cognitive bias research

debate_strengths:
  - Logical analysis ability
  - Objectivity in evidence evaluation
  - Discovery of structural problems

potential_biases:
  - Analysis paralysis (insufficient action)
  - Perfectionism (downplaying practicality)
  - Data absolutism

Debate Progression Templates

Phase 1: Position Statement Template

[Role Name]'s Recommendation:
"[Specific proposal]"

Grounds:
- [Reference to official documents/standards]
- [Empirical cases/data]
- [Professional field principles]

Expected Effects:
- [Short-term effects]
- [Medium to long-term effects]

Concerns/Risks:
- [Implementation risks]
- [Operational risks]
- [Impacts on other fields]

Success Metrics:
- [Measurable metric 1]
- [Measurable metric 2]

Phase 2: Rebuttal Template

Rebuttal to [Target Role]:
"[Specific rebuttal to target proposal]"

Rebuttal Grounds:
- [Overlooked perspectives]
- [Contradictory evidence/cases]
- [Concerns from professional field]

Alternative Proposal:
"[Improved proposal]"

Compromise Points:
- [Acceptable conditions]
- [Possibility of phased implementation]

Phase 3: Integrated Solution Template

Integrated Solution:
"[Final proposal considering all roles' concerns]"

Considerations for Each Role:
- [Security]: [How security requirements are met]
- [Performance]: [How performance requirements are met]
- [Others]: [How other requirements are met]

Implementation Roadmap:
- Phase 1 (Immediate): [Urgent response items]
- Phase 2 (Short-term): [Basic implementation]
- Phase 3 (Medium-term): [Complete implementation]

Success Metrics & Measurement Methods:
- [Integrated success metrics]
- [Measurement methods/frequency]
- [Review timing]

Debate Quality Checklist

Evidence Quality

References to official documents/standards
Specific cases/data presented
Distinction between speculation and fact
Sources explicitly stated

Debate Constructiveness

Accurate understanding of opponent's proposals
Logical rather than emotional rebuttal
Alternatives also presented
Exploration of win-win possibilities

Implementation Feasibility

Technical feasibility considered
Implementation costs/duration estimated
Phased implementation possibility considered
Risk mitigation measures presented

Integration

Impacts on other fields considered
Pursuit of overall optimization
Long-term perspective included
Measurable success metrics set

Collaboration with Claude

# Debate based on design documents
cat system-design.md
/role-debate architect,security
"Discuss security issues in this design"

# Solution debate based on problems
cat performance-issues.md
/role-debate performance,architect
"Discuss fundamental solutions to performance issues"

# Technology selection debate based on requirements
/role-debate mobile,frontend
"Discuss unified UI strategy for iOS, Android, and Web"

Notes

Debates may take time (longer for complex topics)
With 3+ roles, discussions may diverge
Final decisions should be made by users referencing debate results
For urgent issues, consider single role or multi-role first

Publisher marketplacecook-en@claude-code-cookbook · marketplace and plugin share one repository (wasabeef/claude-code-cookbook)

$

npx claudepluginhub wasabeef/claude-code-cookbook --plugin cook-en