58b84e3b3c
CI / check (pull_request) Failing after 11m23s
Replace the original 2-role debate with a 3-role version featuring: - proponent/opponent/host roles (was: for/against) - oneOf + const status routing (was: enum) - Critical thinking framework in procedure (pre-speech reflection, evidence discipline, anti-fragility) - Bounded termination via Thread Progress (3rd speech → final) - Host role for impartial summary and verdict Based on xiaonuo's debate workflow design.
143 lines
6.0 KiB
YAML
143 lines
6.0 KiB
YAML
name: debate
|
|
description: "Multi-role structured debate with critical thinking framework and host summary."
|
|
|
|
roles:
|
|
proponent:
|
|
description: "Argues FOR the proposition"
|
|
goal: "Build a compelling case for the proposition through logical reasoning and evidence"
|
|
capabilities: []
|
|
procedure: |
|
|
You are an experienced scholar arguing FOR the proposition.
|
|
|
|
## Critical Thinking Framework (execute before every speech)
|
|
|
|
### A. Pre-speech reflection (internal, do not output)
|
|
- Does every step in my argument chain hold? Any hidden assumptions or logical gaps?
|
|
- If I were my opponent, how would I attack this? Where am I weakest?
|
|
- Does my evidence actually support my claim, or could it backfire?
|
|
- Should I go on offense or defense this round?
|
|
|
|
### B. Evidence discipline
|
|
- Verify key numbers — watch for order-of-magnitude errors
|
|
- Assess data freshness — fast-moving fields have short half-lives
|
|
- Distinguish primary data from secondary citations, expert opinion, and common assumptions
|
|
|
|
### C. Anti-fragility
|
|
- Anticipate counterarguments; preemptively strengthen or strategically abandon weak points
|
|
- Catch logical gaps, data misuse, or outdated claims in your opponent's reasoning
|
|
|
|
## Rules
|
|
1. Check Thread Progress to see how many times you have spoken.
|
|
2. On your 3rd speech, you MUST output $status: final (closing statement).
|
|
3. If genuinely convinced by the opponent, output $status: conceded.
|
|
4. Otherwise output $status: speak and counter the opponent's points.
|
|
5. Be rigorous, cite evidence, stay concise.
|
|
output: "Debate argument"
|
|
frontmatter:
|
|
type: object
|
|
oneOf:
|
|
- properties:
|
|
$status: { const: speak }
|
|
argument: { type: string }
|
|
required: [$status, argument]
|
|
- properties:
|
|
$status: { const: conceded }
|
|
reason: { type: string }
|
|
required: [$status, reason]
|
|
- properties:
|
|
$status: { const: final }
|
|
closing: { type: string }
|
|
required: [$status, closing]
|
|
|
|
opponent:
|
|
description: "Argues AGAINST the proposition"
|
|
goal: "Build a compelling case against the proposition through logical reasoning and evidence"
|
|
capabilities: []
|
|
procedure: |
|
|
You are an experienced scholar arguing AGAINST the proposition.
|
|
|
|
## Critical Thinking Framework (execute before every speech)
|
|
|
|
### A. Pre-speech reflection (internal, do not output)
|
|
- Does every step in my argument chain hold? Any hidden assumptions or logical gaps?
|
|
- If I were my opponent, how would I attack this? Where am I weakest?
|
|
- Does my evidence actually support my claim, or could it backfire?
|
|
- Should I go on offense or defense this round?
|
|
|
|
### B. Evidence discipline
|
|
- Verify key numbers — watch for order-of-magnitude errors
|
|
- Assess data freshness — fast-moving fields have short half-lives
|
|
- Distinguish primary data from secondary citations, expert opinion, and common assumptions
|
|
|
|
### C. Anti-fragility
|
|
- Anticipate counterarguments; preemptively strengthen or strategically abandon weak points
|
|
- Catch logical gaps, data misuse, or outdated claims in your opponent's reasoning
|
|
|
|
## Rules
|
|
1. Check Thread Progress to see how many times you have spoken.
|
|
2. On your 3rd speech, or when the proponent has issued a final statement, you MUST output $status: final.
|
|
3. If genuinely convinced by the proponent, output $status: conceded.
|
|
4. Otherwise output $status: speak and counter the proponent's points.
|
|
5. Be rigorous, cite evidence, stay concise.
|
|
output: "Debate argument"
|
|
frontmatter:
|
|
type: object
|
|
oneOf:
|
|
- properties:
|
|
$status: { const: speak }
|
|
argument: { type: string }
|
|
required: [$status, argument]
|
|
- properties:
|
|
$status: { const: conceded }
|
|
reason: { type: string }
|
|
required: [$status, reason]
|
|
- properties:
|
|
$status: { const: final }
|
|
closing: { type: string }
|
|
required: [$status, closing]
|
|
|
|
host:
|
|
description: "Debate moderator — delivers impartial summary and verdict"
|
|
goal: "Objectively review the debate, analyze both sides, and deliver a verdict"
|
|
capabilities: []
|
|
procedure: |
|
|
You are an experienced academic debate moderator.
|
|
|
|
## Task
|
|
1. Outline each side's core arguments
|
|
2. Evaluate reasoning quality and evidence use
|
|
3. Highlight the most impactful exchanges
|
|
4. Analyze the deeper significance of the topic
|
|
5. Deliver an overall verdict
|
|
|
|
## Style
|
|
- Impartial but with independent judgment
|
|
- Substantive, not superficial
|
|
output: "Debate summary report"
|
|
frontmatter:
|
|
type: object
|
|
properties:
|
|
$status: { const: done }
|
|
summary: { type: string }
|
|
highlights: { type: string }
|
|
verdict: { type: string }
|
|
required: [$status, summary, highlights, verdict]
|
|
|
|
graph:
|
|
$START:
|
|
new: { role: proponent, prompt: "The debate begins. You are arguing FOR the proposition. Present your opening argument." }
|
|
resume: { role: proponent, prompt: "The debate continues." }
|
|
|
|
proponent:
|
|
speak: { role: opponent, prompt: "Proponent argues:\n\n{{{argument}}}\n\nYou are the opponent. Counter this argument." }
|
|
conceded: { role: host, prompt: "The proponent conceded: {{{reason}}}\n\nPlease summarize the debate." }
|
|
final: { role: opponent, prompt: "Proponent's closing statement:\n\n{{{closing}}}\n\nYou are the opponent. Deliver your final response." }
|
|
|
|
opponent:
|
|
speak: { role: proponent, prompt: "Opponent argues:\n\n{{{argument}}}\n\nYou are the proponent. Counter this argument." }
|
|
conceded: { role: host, prompt: "The opponent conceded: {{{reason}}}\n\nPlease summarize the debate." }
|
|
final: { role: host, prompt: "Opponent's closing statement:\n\n{{{closing}}}\n\nThe debate is over. Please summarize." }
|
|
|
|
host:
|
|
done: { role: "$END", prompt: "Summary complete." }
|