Debate Workflow

Number of Perspectives:

• 3 - Default (security, performance, simplicity)
• 5 - Extended (add: maintainability, user-experience)
• 7 - Comprehensive (add: scalability, cost)

Debate Rounds:

• 2 - Quick (position + challenge)
• 3 - Standard (position + challenge + synthesis)
• 4-5 - Deep (multiple challenge/response cycles)

Convergence Criteria:

• 100% - Strong consensus (all perspectives agree)
• 2/3 - Majority rule (two-thirds agreement)
• synthesis - Facilitator synthesizes best hybrid
• evidence - Follow strongest evidence/arguments

Standard Perspective Profiles

Security Perspective:

• Focus: Vulnerabilities, attack vectors, data protection
• Questions: "What could go wrong? How do we prevent breaches?"
• Agent: security agent

Performance Perspective:

• Focus: Speed, scalability, resource efficiency
• Questions: "Will this scale? What are the bottlenecks?"
• Agent: optimizer agent

Simplicity Perspective:

• Focus: Minimal complexity, ruthless simplification
• Questions: "Is this the simplest solution? Can we remove abstractions?"
• Agent: cleanup agent + reviewer agent

Maintainability Perspective:

• Focus: Long-term evolution, technical debt
• Questions: "Can future developers understand this? How hard to change?"
• Agent: reviewer agent + architect agent

User Experience Perspective:

• Focus: API design, usability, developer experience
• Questions: "Is this intuitive? How will users interact with this?"
• Agent: api-designer agent

Scalability Perspective:

• Focus: Growth capacity, distributed systems
• Questions: "What happens at 10x load? 100x?"
• Agent: optimizer agent + architect agent

Cost Perspective:

• Focus: Resource usage, infrastructure costs, development time
• Questions: "What's the ROI? Are we over-engineering?"
• Agent: analyzer agent

Execution Process

Step 1: Frame the Decision

• Use ambiguity agent to clarify the decision to be made
• Use prompt-writer agent to create clear decision prompt
• Define decision scope and constraints
• Identify stakeholder concerns
• List evaluation criteria
• Document explicit user requirements that constrain options
• CRITICAL: Frame decision as question, not predetermined answer

Decision Framing Template:

# Decision: [Brief Title]

## Question
[One-sentence question to be debated]

## Context
[Why this decision matters, background information]

## Constraints
[Non-negotiable requirements, technical limitations]

## Evaluation Criteria
[How we'll judge proposed solutions]

## Perspectives to Include
[Which viewpoints are most relevant]

Example:

# Decision: Data Storage Strategy for User Analytics

## Question
Should we use PostgreSQL with JSONB, MongoDB, or ClickHouse
for storing and querying user analytics events?

## Context
- 10M events/day expected at launch
- 100M events/day within 2 years
- Complex queries for dashboard analytics
- Real-time and historical reporting needed

## Constraints
- Must handle 10M events/day minimum
- Query latency < 200ms for dashboards
- Budget: $5K/month infrastructure
- Team familiar with PostgreSQL, not ClickHouse

## Evaluation Criteria
1. Performance at scale
2. Query flexibility
3. Operational complexity
4. Cost at scale
5. Team learning curve

## Perspectives to Include
Performance, Cost, Maintainability, Scalability

Step 2: Initialize Perspectives

• Select N perspectives relevant to decision
• Spawn Claude subprocess for each perspective
• Each subprocess receives decision framing doc
• Each subprocess assigned perspective profile
• No context sharing between perspectives yet
• Each forms initial position independently

Initial Position Requirements:

• State recommended approach
• Provide 3-5 supporting arguments
• Identify risks of alternative approaches
• Quantify claims where possible

Step 3: Debate Round 1 - Initial Positions

• Collect initial positions from all perspectives
• Use analyzer agent to synthesize positions
• Document each perspective's recommendation
• Identify areas of agreement
• Identify areas of conflict
• Surface assumptions made by each perspective

Round 1 Output Structure:

## Security Perspective: [Recommendation]

Arguments For:
1. [Argument with evidence]
2. [Argument with evidence]
3. [Argument with evidence]

Concerns About Alternatives:
- [Alternative A]: [Specific concern]
- [Alternative B]: [Specific concern]

Assumptions:
- [Assumption 1]
- [Assumption 2]

Step 4: Debate Round 2 - Challenge and Respond

• Share all Round 1 positions with all perspectives
• Each perspective challenges other perspectives' arguments
• Each perspective defends their position against challenges
• Use analyzer agent to track argument strength
• Identify which arguments withstand scrutiny
• Document concessions and refinements

Challenge Format:

## [Perspective A] challenges [Perspective B]

Challenge: [Question or counter-argument]
Evidence: [Supporting data or examples]
Request: [What would change your position?]

Response Format:

## [Perspective B] responds to [Perspective A]

Response: [Address the challenge]
Concession: [Points where you agree or adjust]
Counter: [Additional evidence or reasoning]

Step 5: Debate Round 3 - Find Common Ground

• Identify points of consensus across perspectives
• Surface remaining disagreements explicitly
• Explore hybrid approaches combining insights
• Use architect agent to design synthesis options
• Validate hybrid approaches against all perspectives
• Document convergence or divergence

Convergence Analysis:

## Areas of Agreement
1. [Consensus point 1]
2. [Consensus point 2]

## Remaining Disagreements
1. [Disagreement 1]
   - Security says: [position]
   - Performance says: [position]
   - Potential resolution: [hybrid approach]

## Hybrid Approaches Identified
1. [Hybrid Option 1]
   - Combines: [which perspectives]
   - Trade-offs: [explicit costs/benefits]

Step 6: Facilitator Synthesis

• Use architect agent as neutral facilitator
• Use analyzer agent to evaluate all arguments
• Review all debate rounds systematically
• Identify strongest evidence-based arguments
• Make recommendation with confidence level
• Document decision rationale thoroughly
• Include dissenting views explicitly

Synthesis Structure:

## Facilitator Synthesis

### Recommendation
[Clear statement of recommended approach]

### Confidence Level
[High/Medium/Low] confidence based on:
- Consensus level: [X% of perspectives agree]
- Evidence quality: [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
- Risk level: [Low/Medium/High if wrong]

### Rationale
[Explanation of why this recommendation]

### Key Arguments That Won
1. [Argument that swayed decision]
2. [Argument that swayed decision]
3. [Argument that swayed decision]

### Key Arguments Against (Dissenting Views)
1. [Strongest counter-argument]
2. [Remaining concern]

### Implementation Guidance
[How to execute this decision]

### Success Metrics
[How we'll know if this was the right choice]

### Revisit Triggers
[Conditions that would require reconsidering this decision]

Step 7: Decision Documentation

• Create decision record: decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-decision-name.md
• Document full debate transcript
• Include all perspective arguments
• Record synthesis and final decision
• Add to .claude/context/DISCOVERIES.md
• Update relevant architecture docs

Decision Record Template:

# Decision Record: [Title]

Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Status: Accepted
Decision Makers: [List perspectives included]

## Context
[What decision was needed and why]

## Decision
[What was decided]

## Consequences
[What happens because of this decision]

## Alternatives Considered
[What other options were debated]

## Debate Summary
[Key arguments from each perspective]

## Dissenting Opinions
[Perspectives that disagreed and why]

## Review Date
[When to revisit this decision]

---

## Full Debate Transcript

### Round 1: Initial Positions
[Complete positions from all perspectives]

### Round 2: Challenges and Responses
[All challenge/response exchanges]

### Round 3: Convergence Analysis
[Common ground and hybrid approaches]

### Facilitator Synthesis
[Complete synthesis document]

Step 8: Implement Decision

• Use builder agent to implement chosen approach
• Follow the decided path from synthesis
• Implement monitoring for success metrics
• Set up alerts for revisit triggers
• Document decision in code comments
• Create runbook if operational complexity added

Trade-Offs

Cost: Multiple agent cycles, longer decision time Benefit: Well-reasoned decisions, surface hidden risks Best For: Decisions that are expensive to reverse

Examples

Example 1: API Design - REST vs GraphQL

Configuration:

• Perspectives: 5 (Simplicity, Performance, User-Experience, Maintainability, Cost)
• Rounds: 3
• Convergence: Synthesis

Debate Summary:

• Simplicity: REST is straightforward, well-understood
• Performance: GraphQL reduces over-fetching, fewer round trips
• UX: GraphQL gives frontend flexibility, better DX
• Maintainability: REST easier to version and evolve
• Cost: GraphQL higher learning curve, more complex infrastructure

Result: REST for initial MVP, GraphQL for v2

• Rationale: Team knows REST, faster to ship
• Migration path: Add GraphQL layer in 6 months
• Trigger: When frontend requests 3+ endpoints per view

Example 2: Testing Strategy - Unit vs Integration Heavy

Configuration:

• Perspectives: 3 (Simplicity, Maintainability, Performance)
• Rounds: 2
• Convergence: 2/3 majority

Debate Summary:

• Simplicity: Unit tests, mock all dependencies
• Maintainability: Integration tests, test real interactions
• Performance: Mix, optimize for feedback speed

Result: 70% unit, 30% integration (Majority agreed)

• Rationale: Unit tests faster feedback, integration tests catch real issues
• Dissent: Simplicity wanted 90% unit tests (overruled by maintainability concerns)

Example 3: Deployment Strategy - Kubernetes vs Serverless

Configuration:

• Perspectives: 5 (Cost, Simplicity, Scalability, Performance, Maintainability)
• Rounds: 4
• Convergence: Synthesis (no majority)

Debate Summary:

• Long, contentious debate with no clear winner
• Cost and Simplicity favored serverless
• Scalability and Performance favored Kubernetes
• Maintainability split (serverless simpler, k8s more control)

Result: Serverless with k8s option researched

• Rationale: Start simple, team small, serverless faster
• Hybrid: Evaluate k8s at 10x scale or complex networking needs
• Strong dissent documented: Performance perspective believes this will need revisiting soon

Philosophy Alignment

This workflow enforces:

• Perspective Diversity: Multiple viewpoints surface hidden trade-offs
• Evidence-Based: Arguments must be supported, not just opinions
• Transparent Trade-offs: Dissent is documented, not hidden
• Structured Exploration: Debate format prevents premature convergence
• Decision Quality: Better decisions through rigorous analysis
• Learning: Debate transcripts become organizational knowledge

Integration with Default Workflow

This workflow replaces Step 4 (Research and Design) of the DEFAULT_WORKFLOW when complex decisions require multi-perspective analysis. Implementation (Step 5) proceeds with the consensus decision.