Structured multi-round debate between two AI tools - one proposes, one challenges, and an orchestrator delivers a verdict.
A single AI tool gives you one perspective. When the stakes are high - architecture decisions, schema design, migration strategies - you want adversarial pressure-testing. debate pits two AI tools against each other in a structured format with enforced rules: the challenger must find flaws before agreeing, both sides must cite evidence, and the orchestrator must pick a winner.
Use cases:
- Stress-test an architecture decision before committing (microservices vs monolith, event sourcing vs CRUD)
- Get adversarial review of a proposed schema or API design
- Compare two approaches with structured arguments rather than vibes
- Force a devil's advocate perspective on a plan you are leaning toward
agentsys install debateRequires at least two AI CLI tools installed. See consult for individual tool install commands.
# Codex argues for, Gemini challenges - 2 rounds about microservices
/debate codex vs gemini about microservices vs monolith
# Thorough 3-round debate with explicit flags
/debate "Should we use event sourcing?" --tools=claude,gemini --rounds=3 --effort=high
# Include the current git diff as context for both tools
/debate codex vs gemini about this refactoring approach --context=diff- Parse - extracts topic, tools, rounds, and effort from natural language or flags
- Detect - scans PATH for installed AI CLI tools; requires at least two
- Resolve - if parameters are missing, presents an interactive picker (proposer, challenger, effort, rounds, context)
- Debate - executes rounds sequentially. Each round:
- The proposer argues for the topic (round 1) or defends against challenges (round 2+)
- The challenger identifies flaws, missing considerations, and alternatives
- Both must support claims with evidence; unsupported claims are flagged
- Verdict - the orchestrator (Opus) reads all exchanges and delivers a structured synthesis: winner, agreements, disagreements, unresolved questions, and an actionable recommendation
The challenger operates under adversarial rules - it must lead with what is wrong or missing before acknowledging agreements, and cannot agree with unsupported claims.
/debate codex vs gemini about microservices vs monolith
/debate with claude and codex about our auth implementation
/debate thoroughly gemini vs codex about database schema design
/debate codex vs gemini 3 rounds about event sourcing/debate "Redis vs PostgreSQL for caching" --tools=codex,opencode
/debate "Should we use event sourcing?" --tools=claude,gemini --rounds=3 --effort=high
/debate "Performance optimization" --tools=codex,gemini --context=diff| Flag | Values | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
--tools |
TOOL1,TOOL2 | interactive | Proposer and challenger (comma-separated) |
--rounds |
1-5 | 2 | Number of back-and-forth exchanges |
--effort |
low, medium, high, max | interactive | Reasoning depth for both tools |
--context |
diff, file=PATH, none | none | Codebase context shared with both tools |
--model-proposer |
any model identifier | from effort | Override proposer model |
--model-challenger |
any model identifier | from effort | Override challenger model |
Each debate produces a structured result:
- Rounds - proposer opening, challenger response, and subsequent exchanges displayed as they complete
- Verdict - winner with cited evidence from the debate
- Debate quality - rated on genuine disagreement, evidence quality, and challenge depth
- Agreements - points both sides converged on, with supporting evidence
- Disagreements - points where they diverge, with each side's position
- Unresolved questions - gaps neither side addressed
- Recommendation - actionable next step (the orchestrator must pick a direction)
- agentsys runtime
- Node.js (for ACP transport detection)
- At least two supported AI CLI tools on PATH (claude, gemini, codex, opencode, copilot, or kiro)
- consult - single-tool consultation for quick second opinions
- agentsys - plugin runtime and orchestration
MIT