Input Parameters

Collect from user before starting. Only topic is required; all others have defaults.

Param	Required	Default	Description
topic	yes	—	Debate subject
roles	no	Proponent + Opponent	2-4 role objects: {name, stance, model?}. Default: Proponent (argue for) and Opponent (argue against). Model inherits from global.
goal	no	inferred	What question to answer
audience	no	"self"	Who reads the report: self / team / public
decision_type	no	"personal-choice"	personal-choice / team-standardization / market-analysis
evidence_round	no	"auto"	false / true / auto (enable when topic is fact-dense)
confirm_plan	no	true	Show plan and wait for user OK before execution
model	no	inherit	Global subagent model; role-level override takes priority
output_path	no	null	File path for report; null = return in conversation

Implicit parameter: language — inferred from the user's topic/conversation language. All subagent prompts output in this language.

Example User Prompt

• Claude Code vs OpenCode (gpt-5.4, claude-4.6-sonnet)

Execution Pipeline

Phase 0 — Pre-flight

Step 0a: Model reachability check

Collect all unique models (global + per-role + judge). For each unique model, probe via sessions_spawn with a minimal one-sentence task (e.g. "Reply OK") and model: . Do NOT use curl or external HTTP — all models route through OpenClaw's provider config.

If any probe fails:

• If user explicitly specified the failed model → abort, report failure, suggest alternatives
• If model was default-assigned → warn user, fall back to session default model, continue

Step 0b: Plan presentation (if confirm_plan: true)

Present to user:

• Topic
• Role × model assignment table
• Evidence round: on/off/auto (with rationale if auto)
• Estimated subagent call count
• Goal / audience / decision_type interpretation

[STOP — wait for user confirmation]

If confirm_plan: false, skip directly to Phase 1.

Phase 1 — Stance Investigation (parallel)

Spawn one subagent per role, all in parallel.

Each agent receives a prompt built from:

• Role name + stance
• Topic
• web_search: enabled

Required output format per agent:

Core arguments (3-5):
  - [argument] | confidence: 0.0-1.0 | source: [official-docs/community-feedback/personal-blog/academic-paper]
Opponent weaknesses (2-3)
Predicted counter-attacks (1-2)

Use sessions_spawn + sessions_yield to wait for all completions.

Error handling:

• Agent timeout → mark output [INCOMPLETE], continue pipeline

Phase 2 — Cross Rebuttal (parallel)

Spawn one subagent per role, all in parallel.

Each agent receives:

• Its original stance
• All other roles' Phase 1 output (cross-injected)
• web_search: disabled

Required output format per agent:

Rebuttals (one per opponent argument):
  - [rebuttal] | confidence: 0.0-1.0
Weakest premise attack:
  - Identify opponent's single weakest assumption and challenge it  ← Socratic element
New attacks (2):
  - [attack]

Word limit: 300 × number_of_opponents words per agent.

Error handling:

• Agent timeout → mark [INCOMPLETE], continue

Phase 2.5 — Evidence Audit (optional)

Triggered when evidence_round: true, or when auto and topic involves measurable claims. Auto-enable heuristic: topic contains performance benchmarks, cost comparisons, security assessments, market data, or quantitative metrics. When in doubt with auto, skip (false positive costs more than false negative).

Spawn 1 subagent as "evidence auditor":

• Input: all Phase 1 + Phase 2 output
• web_search: disabled
• Task: extract every factual claim, tag each as:

[official-docs] [community-feedback] [personal-blog] [no-source] [exaggerated]

• Output: concise fact checklist

Phase 3 — Neutral Judgment

Spawn 1 subagent as neutral judge:

• Input: Phase 1 + Phase 2 + Phase 2.5 (if available)
• web_search: disabled
• Weigh arguments by confidence scores AND source quality tags

Required output structure:

• Strong arguments per side
• Exaggerated claims per side
• Shared limitations (problems neither option solves)
• Core disagreements (value-level, not just factual)
• Consensus points
• Recommendation — explicit directional advice, adapted to decision_type
• Open Questions — unresolved unknowns that could change the conclusion
• Scenario selection matrix (table: scenario × recommendation × rationale)
• One-sentence summary

Phase 4 — Report Assembly

Orchestrator (main conversation) assembles all outputs into Markdown:

# [topic]: Debate Research Report
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Method: Multi-agent structured debate (debate-research skill)
Roles: [role1 (model)] | [role2 (model)] | ...
Audience: [audience] | Decision type: [decision_type]
Completion: [success | degraded-success | aborted]
Core Arguments by Side
[Phase 1 output, organized by role]
Cross Rebuttals
[Phase 2 output, organized by role]
Evidence Audit
[Phase 2.5 output, or "Not requested"]
Neutral Judgment
[Phase 3 sections 1-5]
Recommendation
[Phase 3 section 6]
Open Questions
[Phase 3 section 7]
Scenario Matrix
[Phase 3 section 8]
One-line summary: [Phase 3 section 9]

If output_path specified → write file. Otherwise → return in conversation.

Completion States

State	Condition	Behavior
success	All phases completed normally	Full report
degraded-success	1+ agents timed out or returned [INCOMPLETE]	Report with degradation note
aborted	Model pre-check failed / user cancelled plan	No report; return error summary

Prompt Templates

See references/prompts.md for the exact prompt templates used in each phase. Orchestrator builds prompts dynamically from parameters + these templates.

Core arguments (3-5):
  - [argument] | confidence: 0.0-1.0 | source: [official-docs/community-feedback/personal-blog/academic-paper]
Opponent weaknesses (2-3)
Predicted counter-attacks (1-2)

Rebuttals (one per opponent argument):
  - [rebuttal] | confidence: 0.0-1.0
Weakest premise attack:
  - Identify opponent's single weakest assumption and challenge it  ← Socratic element
New attacks (2):
  - [attack]

# [topic]: Debate Research Report
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Method: Multi-agent structured debate (debate-research skill)
Roles: [role1 (model)] | [role2 (model)] | ...
Audience: [audience] | Decision type: [decision_type]
Completion: [success | degraded-success | aborted]
Core Arguments by Side
[Phase 1 output, organized by role]
Cross Rebuttals
[Phase 2 output, organized by role]
Evidence Audit
[Phase 2.5 output, or "Not requested"]
Neutral Judgment
[Phase 3 sections 1-5]
Recommendation
[Phase 3 section 6]
Open Questions
[Phase 3 section 7]
Scenario Matrix
[Phase 3 section 8]
One-line summary: [Phase 3 section 9]