/debate — Multi-Round Claude vs GPT Debate

/debate — Multi-Round Claude vs GPT Debate

Usage

/debate "<topic or question>"

Description

Structured 3-round debate between Claude (native) and GPT (via Codex CLI). Claude and GPT take positions, critique each other, then Claude synthesizes a verdict. Tessera graph context is used when available.

Instructions

Phase 0: Context

1. If tessera MCP is configured in this session, call graph_continue then graph_retrieve with the debate topic keywords to pull relevant codebase context.
2. Note any architectural patterns, constraints, or decisions relevant to the topic.

Phase 1: Claude's Initial Position

Formulate a clear stance on the topic with 3 supporting reasons. Include any codebase context found. State what would change your mind.

Phase 2: GPT's Position (Round 1)

Send the topic and context to Codex:

codex exec "You are a senior software architect in a structured debate. Topic: <TOPIC>. Codebase context (if any): <CONTEXT>. Give: (1) your clear stance, (2) top 3 reasons, (3) biggest risk of your approach, (4) what evidence would change your mind. Be direct and specific. No hedging."

Record GPT's full position.

Phase 3: Claude's Critique + GPT's Response (Round 2)

Claude critiques GPT's position: identify flawed assumptions, missing edge cases, or contradictions with project constraints. Then send:

codex exec "Debate round 2. Topic: <TOPIC>. Your position: <GPT_POSITION>. Claude's critique: <CLAUDE_CRITIQUE>. Respond: either defend your stance with new evidence OR concede specific points. If you concede, state what you now believe. Be precise."

Phase 4: Synthesis

Claude produces the final verdict:

• Summarize both positions
• Note where agreement was reached
• Note where genuine disagreement remains
• Issue a clear recommendation with confidence level (high / medium / low)

Phase 5: Lock Decision (if tessera available)

If tessera MCP is active and the debate reached a clear verdict, lock it permanently:

graph_lock_decision(
  summary = "<topic>: <verdict and rationale in one sentence>",
  scope   = "project" | "module",
  files   = [<files the decision applies to, if any>]
)

This persists the debate outcome so graph_continue surfaces it in future turns and graph_action_summary can reference it. Do NOT call graph_action_summary to record — that is for reading history, not writing. graph_lock_decision is the write path.

Output Format

Topic: <topic>

GPT Position: <1-2 sentence summary>

Claude Critique: <key objections raised>

GPT Response: <concessions or defenses>

Verdict: <clear recommendation>
Confidence: high / medium / low
Open disagreements (if any): <what remains unresolved>