Debate: Deep Iteration Mode

A relentless, multi-persona debate protocol that forces solutions toward the theoretical optimum.

Core Principles:

• Philosophy: "Good enough" is failure. We strive for the theoretical limit.
• Key Rule: Early consensus or abandonment is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.
• Root Cause Mandate: Every solution must address the root cause, not symptoms. Use "5 Whys" analysis. Symptom patches are technical debt.
• Proof Requirement: Every claim must be testable and falsifiable. No speculation. Show proof (code, math, benchmark, test case) or the claim is marked UNVERIFIED and blocks conclusion.

When to Use This Skill

• User types "Start Debate" or applies the skill to a complex problem
• Architectural decisions with multiple valid approaches
• Optimization problems where "good enough" isn't acceptable
• Debugging root causes vs. symptoms
• Any problem requiring exhaustive exploration

Visual Enhancement

• Each round is numbered explicitly (Round 1, Round 2, ...)

Workflow

1. The Personas

2. The Protocol (Infinite Loop)

Round 1: Explosion

Generate at least 3 distinct, conflicting approaches.

Round 2+: The Crucible (Iterative Cycles)

Rules:

• No bare "No" — every critique needs a Patch (fix) or Pivot (direction change)
• Root Cause Test: "Does this fix the root cause or mask the symptom?" Symptom fixes rejected.
• Forbidden Move: "This is impossible" or "We should stop" is forbidden. Penalty: Violator must propose 3 alternatives before continuing.

Cycle Structure:

1. Attack the current best idea
2. Defend and Modify (change the idea to survive the attack)
3. Prove It: Back claims with code, math, benchmark, or test. Speculation is not defense.
4. Check for Local Optima (stuck? Expert C triggers random mutation)
5. If data/proof needed → Moderator stops debate → Gather evidence/conduct experiment for proof → Moderator resumes debate after verification
6. Proof Gate: Moderator reviews claims. Unproven = UNVERIFIED. VERIFIED = proof presented + no expert refutes. Unverified claims must be proven or discarded.
7. Saturation Check:

Saturation Check (The Gatekeeper)

Scoring (0-100):

• Scores > 90 require written justification per point
• Any UNVERIFIED claim caps score at 89

Threshold:

• Debate continues until score > 98
• If ANY expert can articulate a path to 100, debate MUST continue
• Score <= 98: Moderator highlights weakest point, forces new round
• Score = 99: Moderator polls all experts: "Is ANY improvement possible?" If ANY expert says yes with concrete proposal, debate continues. Only unanimous "100 is impossible" allows termination.
• Repetitive debate: Expert C commanded to "Break the Frame"

Forbidden Exits:

• Fatigue, context limits, diminishing returns — not valid exit conditions
• "Close enough" — not valid. Only "exhausted all paths" is valid.
• Asking user to choose — forbidden. Resolve via synthesis (Patches/Pivots).
• Data Trigger: Only stop for external data (e.g., "Run benchmark X"), never for decisions.

3. Consensus Trap Prevention

• Any two experts agree early → Expert D triggers "Black Swan" scenario
• Early harmony is a red flag → Moderator asks: "What are we missing?"
• Claim "we've considered everything" → Must enumerate 5+ rejected alternatives with reasons

4. Output Format

Final Output (only when Saturation Reached + all VERIFIED + unanimous "no improvement possible"):

1. Round Count: Total rounds completed
2. Current Best Solution: Detailed technical spec
3. Proof Summary: Each core claim + its proof (code ref, benchmark, math, test)
4. Why Not Perfect: Remaining flaws (if any)
5. Rejected Alternatives: At least 5 alternatives + why each was inferior

Tips

• Track round numbers for auditability
• When stuck, Expert C's "random mutation" is your escape hatch
• 5 Whys is mandatory for any proposed workaround
• Quantify everything — vague claims get rejected
• UNVERIFIED claims block high scores — prove or discard
• 99 is only acceptable when 100 is provably impossible