Real Claude vs GPT multi-round debate. Use when you need a second opinion, want to debate architecture decisions, or evaluate competing approaches with multi-model collaboration.
/debate "<topic or question>"
Structured 3-round debate between Claude (native) and GPT (via Codex CLI). Claude and GPT take positions, critique each other, then Claude synthesizes a verdict. Tessera graph context is used when available.
graph_continue then graph_retrieve with the debate topic keywords to pull relevant codebase context.Formulate a clear stance on the topic with 3 supporting reasons. Include any codebase context found. State what would change your mind.
Send the topic and context to Codex:
codex exec "You are a senior software architect in a structured debate. Topic: <TOPIC>. Codebase context (if any): <CONTEXT>. Give: (1) your clear stance, (2) top 3 reasons, (3) biggest risk of your approach, (4) what evidence would change your mind. Be direct and specific. No hedging."
Record GPT's full position.
Claude critiques GPT's position: identify flawed assumptions, missing edge cases, or contradictions with project constraints. Then send:
codex exec "Debate round 2. Topic: <TOPIC>. Your position: <GPT_POSITION>. Claude's critique: <CLAUDE_CRITIQUE>. Respond: either defend your stance with new evidence OR concede specific points. If you concede, state what you now believe. Be precise."
Claude produces the final verdict:
If tessera MCP is active, call graph_action_summary with the debate topic, verdict, and rationale as the summary string.
Topic: <topic>
GPT Position: <1-2 sentence summary>
Claude Critique: <key objections raised>
GPT Response: <concessions or defenses>
Verdict: <clear recommendation>
Confidence: high / medium / low
Open disagreements (if any): <what remains unresolved>