Core rule: Reasoning disputes cannot be resolved by more reasoning. Only evidence arbitrates.
Quick Start
- Write your hypothesis in one paragraph
- List existing evidence (each with source: file, line, or command)
- Identify 2–3 weakest links in your analysis
- Fill in the three prompts below and launch in parallel
task(subagent_type="explore", run_in_background=true, prompt="[DEFENDER]...")
task(subagent_type="oracle", run_in_background=true, prompt="[CHALLENGER]...")
task(subagent_type="explore", run_in_background=true, prompt="[EVIDENCE HUNTER]...")
Why separate prompts? Each agent must be blind to the others' goals — if the Challenger sees the Defender's framing, it anchors on the same assumptions it's supposed to attack. Fill in each prompt from REFERENCE.md independently.
Minimal prompt structure (fill in <...>):
DEFENDER: "You are the DEFENDER for: <hypothesis>. Find direct physical evidence
(file:line, command output, code) for each claim. List the 3 weakest
points and collect pre-emptive counter-evidence."
CHALLENGER: "You are the CHALLENGER for: <hypothesis>. Find holes: alternative
explanations, single-sample claims, inferences used as facts. For
every alternative you propose, provide how to falsify it."
HUNTER: "Find facts only — no inference. Answer: <2-3 specific questions from
disputed claims>. Every answer must be a command output or code verbatim.
Tag each: [SUPPORTS] / [CHALLENGES] / [NEUTRAL]."
Three Roles
| Role | Goal | Agent Type |
|---|---|---|
| Defender | Find strongest evidence for the hypothesis | explore |
| Challenger | Find holes, alternative explanations, single-sample claims | oracle |
| Evidence Hunter | Find new facts only — no inference allowed | explore |
5-Step Flow
- Prepare — hypothesis + evidence list + 2-3 weakest links
- Launch — all three agents in parallel (
run_in_background=true) - Triage — split results into: agreed facts / disputed claims / new evidence
- Arbitrate — for each dispute, find a command/file/code that directly resolves it; if only reasoning exists, mark
[UNRESOLVED] - Conclude — write only what has physical evidence; disputed items stay pending
Conclusion Format
### Confirmed Facts [FACT:source]
### Reasonable Inferences [INFERENCE]
### Unresolved Disputes — verification method needed
### Corrected Mistakes — original → corrected | evidence
Evidence Tags
[FACT:file:line] · [FACT:cmd] · [FACT:N samples] · [INFERENCE] · [SPECULATION] · [UNRESOLVED]
No bare claims in conclusions. Every statement needs a tag.
See REFERENCE.md for full prompt templates with examples, common traps, arbitration decision tree, and evidence priority rules.