gasserane/personal-skills

decision-debate

Run a formal multi-perspective debate on one contested MEL/SRHR design decision: persona agents mapped to real specialist lenses research the call independently and blind, debate one round, then a decision-memo-shaped synthesis keeps agreements and genuine disagreements visible for Ane to decide on. Use when Ane cannot decide between named options and wants independent perspectives argued. Token-heavy by design: reserve for real decisions. Not for sharpening a design she already leans on (/gril…

First seen Jul 9, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add gasserane/personal-skills --skill decision-debate

Summary

  • Run a formal multi-perspective debate on one contested MEL/SRHR design decision: persona agents mapped to real specialist lenses research the call independently and blind, debate one round, then a decision-memo-shaped synthesis keeps agreements and genuine disagreements visible for Ane to decide on.
  • Use when Ane cannot decide between named options and wants independent perspectives argued.
  • Token-heavy by design: reserve for real decisions.
  • Not for sharpening a design she already leans on (/grill-mel), net-new builds (brainstorming), or a plain options paper (/decision-memo), and never for building anything.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from gasserane/personal-skills · top by installs.

npx skills add gasserane/personal-skills

Browse all from gasserane/personal-skills

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 2
Default branch main
Open issues 0
Status Active

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Declared agents claude-code

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 5,214 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 637 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 313 installs

SKILL.md

Decision-debate (MEL/SRHR)

A formal debate that brings independent perspectives TO Ane on one contested MEL/SRHR design call. It operationalises the CLAUDE.md three-perspective rule: several agents research the same decision from different lenses, argue once, and the result is synthesised for Ane to decide on. It decides nothing itself.

Lane — when this skill, not another

The grill family differs by direction, not topic:

  • decision-debate (this): brings perspectives to Ane. Independent agents research and argue a contested call Ane did not answer herself. Use only when the answer is genuinely uncertain and reasonable experts would disagree.
  • /grill-mel: pulls from Ane. Interviews her one question at a time to sharpen a design she already leans on.
  • brainstorming (superpowers): for net-new builds headed to a code spec.

Reserved for genuine, consequential, contested decisions. Never for building. If the answer is already known, use /grill-mel or /ann. If the task is to produce a deliverable, use /ann.

Gate before running

Confirm two things before spawning agents, because this is token-heavy:

  1. The decision is genuinely contested (reasonable experts would split), not just unfamiliar to Ane.
  2. It is a decision, not a build or a deliverable.

If either fails, stop and route to /grill-mel, /ann, or brainstorming.

Method — three stages

State the decision in one sentence, confirm it with Ane, then run:

Stage 1 — independent, blind research

  1. Pick the personas. 3 by default, 5 for a high-stakes call. Each persona maps to a real specialist lens from agent-improvements/agent_registry.md, not an invented character. The default trio:

- Method (evaluation-design / contribution-plausibility stance): what can the evidence actually carry? - Political economy and decolonial (political-economy-reviewer stance): whose knowledge counts, what power sits in the data? - Operational feasibility (ma-priorities / reader-position stance): can the people on the ground do this, and does it serve the MA? For a 5-persona run, add the two lenses most load-bearing for the specific call (for example gender-transformative, safeguarding, or a costing/efficiency lens).

  1. Spawn the personas in a single message so they run in parallel (the Vi parallel fan-out mechanism). Each gets the same decision brief but a different lens mandate, and researches independently and blind to the others using WebSearch, the knowledge MCP, and the MEL Wiki.
  2. Each persona returns: its position, its one load-bearing reason, and the evidence behind it. Apply the citation standard. Flag any unsourced fact with ⚠️ rather than inventing it.

Stage 2 — one debate round

Give each persona the others' Stage 1 positions. Each writes a short rebuttal: where it concedes, where it holds, and why. One round only. No endless back-and-forth.

Stage 3 — synthesis Ane decides on

Write one readable Tier 1 brief in the decision-memo shape:

  • Context — the decision in one sentence and why it is contested.
  • Options — each live option with its strongest case, drawn from the personas.
  • Points of agreement — where the personas converged.
  • Genuine disagreements — kept visible, not smoothed over. This is the value of the debate.
  • Recommendation — the recommended option, with the dissent recorded next to it.
  • Risks and reversibility — what the recommendation costs and how hard it is to undo.

The no-write gate

The debate decides nothing. The synthesis ends with this exact line:

DECISION REQUIRED, this is a recommendation not a decision.

The skill writes nothing to any canonical file: no wiki edit, no registry change, no committed document. It returns the brief to Ane and stops. Ane decides; acting on the decision is a separate step she takes.

Scale escalation

For an unusually large debate where deterministic token control matters, run the same three stages through the Workflow tool's judge-panel/parallel pattern instead: parallel persona agents in Stage 1, a debate stage, a synthesis stage, with budget bounding the spend. The Workflow route needs explicit opt-in each time; this skill is the routable default.

Close

Hand Ane the synthesis brief and stop. Do not adopt the recommendation, edit any file, or start building. If Ane decides and wants the decision acted on, that is a fresh task for /ann or the right builder skill.