Multi-Agent Debate

Core rule: Reasoning disputes cannot be resolved by more reasoning. Only evidence arbitrates.

Quick Start

1. Write your hypothesis in one paragraph
2. List existing evidence (each with source: file, line, or command)
3. Identify 2–3 weakest links in your analysis
4. 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](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

5-Step Flow

1. Prepare — hypothesis + evidence list + 2-3 weakest links
2. Launch — all three agents in parallel (runinbackground=true)
3. Triage — split results into: agreed facts / disputed claims / new evidence
4. Arbitrate — for each dispute, find a command/file/code that directly resolves it; if only reasoning exists, mark [UNRESOLVED]
5. 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](REFERENCE.md) for full prompt templates with examples, common traps, arbitration decision tree, and evidence priority rules.