110 skills · sorted by relevance
Turn a technical choice into a structured debate between different AI model families. Assign explicit positions, launch the discussion, and summarize agreement, disagreement, and a recommendation supported by the strongest argument that survives the debate.
Compare options through a debate among agents given distinct expertise and positions for the topic. Choose a three-round discussion with a visible transcript and synthesis, or a one-round check that presents initial perspectives.
Run an automated codex⇄Claude debate to consensus — no round cap, no deadlock exit. Two explicit subcommands. `review` (also the bare/back-compat default) — codex (reviewer) critiques the current diff and a Claude subagent (author) fixes/disputes, looping until they agree. `answer` — Claude and codex each answer a freeform prompt in parallel, then cross-check until they agree, and a unified answer is returned. Use when the user types `/codex-debate`, asks to "have codex review this", "run the codex debate", "review this PR with codex", "argue this with codex until you agree", or passes a question to "have Claude and codex debate/answer until they agree".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run a structural-review debate between two lenses — lowy (volatility-based decomposition) and hickey (structural simplicity) — on the current diff. Each reviews independently, then they cross-examine every finding until they agree per-finding, and the agreed fixes are applied. Use when the user types `/lens-debate`, or asks to "have lowy and hickey review this", "run the lens debate", "debate this diff structurally", or "argue the structure of this PR until the lenses agree".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
《辩论筑基》体系辩论审问——引导出论与攻防处理。基于 grill-me 审问模式，完整内置《辩论筑基》(Debate Universal Grammar) 全套体系。自包含，不需另行学习。
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Coordinate multiple AI agents in Diverga for parallel research, reviews, and methodology comparisons. Manage team creation, progress, and results, or run VS Arena debates where different research perspectives critique recommendations before the user chooses an approach.
N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Compare technical choices through structured discussions among available AI providers. Use independent reviews or rounds of cross-critique to examine risks and trade-offs, then receive a synthesis of agreement, disagreement, recommended decisions, and concrete next steps.
Structure persuasive speeches and formal arguments in forensic, legal, policy, and competitive debate styles. Use when the user needs to prepare talks, opening or closing arguments, policy pitches, public explanations, debate speeches, or mentions 'forensic speech', 'formal argument', 'persuasive speech structure', 'debate speech', 'opening statement', 'closing argument'. Turns structured claims into audience-tuned persuasive delivery.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Structure persuasive speeches and formal arguments in forensic, legal, policy, and competitive debate styles. Use when the user needs to prepare talks, opening or closing arguments, policy pitches, public explanations, debate speeches, or mentions 'forensic speech', 'formal argument', 'persuasive speech structure', 'debate speech', 'opening statement', 'closing argument'. Turns structured claims into audience-tuned persuasive delivery.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Explore a marketing decision through simulated advisors using well-known marketers' published frameworks. Compare their recommendations, uncover disagreements and trade-offs, and receive a synthesis with concrete next steps suited to the business and its constraints.
Set a cooling-off period for an approved strategic decision, keeping it out of repeated debate until expiry or a defined exception. It records freeze dates and early-release reasons so later reviews can trace changes.
Evaluate solutions through multi-round debate between independent judges until consensus
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Modern, interactive alternative to `/do` — clarify intent up front, then take a task end-to-end with a serial AI review gauntlet (lens debate (lowy ⇄ hickey) → codex debate → simplify → code-police, each editing the branch in turn) → CI → evidence. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly types `/be` or `$be`; never auto-select from a natural-language request.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run /be's review gauntlet SERIALLY — /lens-debate (lowy ⇄ hickey), then /codex-debate, then /simplify, then code-police, each editing and committing on the live branch in turn. Use from /be §4, or when the user asks to "run the review gauntlet". Requires Claude Code's Skill tool.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Structured multi-round debate between AI tools with proposer/challenger roles and verdict
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when user explicitly asks for an adversarial / multi-round dialectic between masters — 祖师辩论, 各执一词, 谁更对, debate, 应成 vs 顿悟, 顿渐之争. Differs from /compare-masters (parallel single-round) by being adversarial multi-round via fresh-subagent orchestration. Topics 空有 / 禅净 / 性相 / 戒律 vs 内观 — trigger is adversarial framing: "禅净比较" → compare; "禅净辩论 / 谁更究竟" → here.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Spin up 2-3 expert personas to debate any topic from different angles. Structure: Opening statements, rebuttals, cross-examination, closing arguments.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Build a panel of your real buyer personas (from a deep scan of any tools you allow it to connect to) and have them debate any decision you bring — a marketing launch, a price increase, a new product, a positioning change, a feature cut. Returns a structured debate, the strongest objections, and a clear recommendation. Use when you want your actual customers in the room before you commit.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Argues the strongest honest case against a decision, plan, belief, hire, pricing move, strategy, or piece of work the user is leaning toward. Steelmans the other side, ranks at most three objections by consequence, runs a short pre-mortem, credits what the user got right, and ends with what would have to be true for their choice to work. Calibrated and collegial, never combative; says plainly when the position is strong. Use whenever the user says "play devil's advocate", "argue the other side", "poke holes in this", "what am I missing", "am I making a mistake", "talk me out of it", "stress-test this idea", "tell me why this is a bad idea", or asks for pushback on something they have mostly decided. Supports gentle, standard, and hard intensity. Not for interrogating requirements before a build (grill-the-brief) or staging a multi-persona debate (debate-simulator).
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Brainstorms and debates approaches, then drives toward an actionable decision. Use whenever someone needs a thinking partner for a decision they're facing: 'discuss', 'debate', 'brainstorm', 'weigh options', 'tradeoffs', 'should I do X or Y', 'help me decide', 'I'm torn between', 'sanity check my thinking', or 'what do you think about'. The user must be asking for help reasoning through a choice — not asking to build, fix, evaluate, plan, or modify something (even if the topic involves this skill itself). Picks the right decision lens, surfaces tradeoffs and blind spots, pushes back when reasoning is genuinely weak, and never implements.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Structured idea generation + multi-LLM debate for the product-owner stage. Diverge (generate genuinely different bets), debate (a 4-persona panel on 4 models argues over 2 rounds), converge (synthesize a recommendation). Used by product-owner before architect; available to architect for design-space exploration.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Schools of historical thought, methodology debates, and the philosophy of history. Covers the major historiographical traditions (Annales, Marxist, feminist, postcolonial, subaltern, world-systems), their methodological commitments, their contributions and limitations, and the enduring debates about objectivity, narrative, and the nature of historical knowledge. Use when evaluating how different historians approach the same subject, understanding why historical interpretations change over time, or assessing the theoretical framework underlying a historical argument.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Simulates a realistic VC Investment Committee: three partner archetypes debate a startup's merits, concerns, and deal terms, scored across 28 dimensions. Use when the user asks to simulate an IC, or how partners would debate their startup, and gives a deck, a company description, or a specific fund. A full run takes about 15–20 minutes, so for a passing question such as 'would a VC fund us?' or 'are we fundable?', answer briefly in chat and offer the simulation instead of starting it. When it runs, partners' views come from the scored simulation, never improvised.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.