An agent team collaborates to perform topic analysis, pro/con argument construction, cross-examination, judge evaluation, and comprehensive report writing.
Execution Mode
Agent Team — 5 agents communicate directly via SendMessage and simulate an actual debate.
Agent Roster
| Agent | File | Role | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic-analyst | .claude/agents/topic-analyst.md |
Topic analysis, issue structuring | general-purpose |
| pro-debater | .claude/agents/pro-debater.md |
Pro-side argument construction | general-purpose |
| con-debater | .claude/agents/con-debater.md |
Con-side argument construction | general-purpose |
| judge | .claude/agents/judge.md |
Argument evaluation, verdict rendering | general-purpose |
| rapporteur | .claude/agents/rapporteur.md |
Comprehensive report writing | general-purpose |
Workflow
Phase 1: Preparation (Orchestrator performs directly)
- Extract from user input:
- Resolution: A clear resolution that can be debated pro/con
- Debate purpose (optional): Educational / decision-making / competition prep / analysis
- User's position (optional): Pro / Con / Neutral
- Debate format (optional): Parliamentary / Lincoln-Douglas / Open debate
- Existing materials (optional): Related reports, papers, articles
- Create a
_workspace/directory at the project root - Organize the input and save it to
_workspace/00_input.md - Determine the execution mode based on the scope of the request
Phase 2: Team Assembly and Execution
| Order | Task | Agent | Depends On | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Topic analysis | topic-analyst | None | _workspace/01_topic_analysis.md |
| 2a | Pro argument construction | pro-debater | Task 1 | _workspace/02_pro_arguments.md |
| 2b | Con argument construction | con-debater | Task 1 | _workspace/03_con_arguments.md |
| 3 | Cross-examination | pro + con | Tasks 2a, 2b | _workspace/04_cross_examination.md |
| 4 | Judge evaluation | judge | Tasks 2a, 2b, 3 | _workspace/05_judge_verdict.md |
| 5 | Comprehensive report | rapporteur | All | _workspace/06_final_report.md |
Tasks 2a (pro) and 2b (con) run in parallel. However, since the con side may reference pro arguments, initial arguments are constructed independently and cross-referenced during the rebuttal phase.
Inter-agent communication flow:
- topic-analyst completes -> sends pro-favorable materials to pro-debater; con-favorable materials to con-debater; evaluation criteria to judge
- pro-debater + con-debater complete -> cross-examination simulation: exchange questions and answers
- cross-examination completes -> judge evaluates all arguments + cross-examination
- judge completes -> rapporteur synthesizes everything into a comprehensive report
Phase 3: Cross-Examination Simulation
The orchestrator mediates cross-examination:
- Deliver pro-debater's cross-examination questions to con-debater
- Record con-debater's answers
- Deliver con-debater's cross-examination questions to pro-debater
- Record pro-debater's answers
- Save the results to
_workspace/04_cross_examination.md
Phase 4: Integration and Final Report
- Verify all files in
_workspace/ - Verify the comprehensive report's balance and completeness
- Report the final summary to the user
Task-Scale Modes
| User Request Pattern | Execution Mode | Agents Deployed |
|---|---|---|
| "Run a debate simulation", "full debate" | Full Simulation | All 5 agents |
| "Just analyze the topic", "structure the issues" | Analysis Mode | topic-analyst only |
| "Just build pro and con arguments" | Argument Mode | topic-analyst + pro + con |
| "Write pro arguments for this topic" | Single-Side Mode | topic-analyst + pro-debater |
| "Evaluate this debate" (existing materials) | Evaluation Mode | judge + rapporteur |
Data Transfer Protocol
| Strategy | Method | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| File-based | _workspace/ directory |
Store and share major deliverables |
| Message-based | SendMessage | Real-time cross-examination exchange, revision requests |
| Task-based | TaskCreate/TaskUpdate | Track progress |
Error Handling
| Error Type | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Resolution unclear | Ask user to clarify, or have topic-analyst reframe |
| Pro/con balance impossible | Adjust premises to reframe the resolution |
| Background materials insufficient | Apply analogous cases; note "limited data" |
| Web search failure | Work from general knowledge; note in report |
| Agent failure | Retry once -> proceed without that deliverable |
Test Scenarios
Normal Flow
Prompt: "Run a debate simulation on the topic: 'AI replacing human jobs is socially desirable'" Expected Results:
- Topic analysis: 3-4 structured issues, background materials, debate format
- Pro: 3-5 core claims + evidence + cross-examination questions
- Con: Pro rebuttal + independent claims + alternative proposal
- Cross-examination: 3 rounds of Q&A per side
- Judge: 100-point evaluation + verdict + feedback
- Report: Balanced comprehensive report + insights
Existing File Flow
Prompt: "Run cross-examination and judge evaluation based on these debate materials" + pro/con argument files attached Expected Results:
- Existing materials copied to
_workspace/02_pro_arguments.mdand_workspace/03_con_arguments.md - Skip topic-analyst, pro-debater, con-debater; deploy cross-examination + judge + rapporteur
Error Flow
Prompt: "Run a debate simulation; pick a topic for me" Expected Results:
- Resolution unclear -> topic-analyst proposes 3 current-event-based resolutions for selection
- After selection, proceed with full simulation
Agent Extension Skills
Extension skills that enhance each agent's domain expertise:
| Agent | Extension Skill | Role |
|---|---|---|
| pro-debater, con-debater | argumentation-framework |
Toulmin argument model, evidence pyramid, 5-Type rebuttal strategies, cross-examination design |
| judge, rapporteur | logical-fallacy-detector |
4-category logical fallacy classification, fallacy penalty standards, argument soundness rubric |