What problem does it solve? Directional business, marketing, and financial questions ("Should we expand into Japan?", "Is this stock a buy?") often get one-sided answers. This Skill pressure-tests a stated claim by running parallel for- and against-advocates with live web research, then routing both cases to a judge that names the specific evidence that settled the call. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Adversarial debate workflow: Extracts the claim, runs a baseline pass, dispatches for- and against-advocates in parallel, and produces a judge verdict (endorse, reject, or revise) with flip conditions and confidence. - Mechanical citation diversity: Enforces zero URL overlap between advocate citation sets, schema-validates all subagent JSON output, and applies a recency gate plus fabrication-risk detection on zero-fetch returns. - Persistent proposals: Writes a structured debate record to Proposal/DEBATE-{claim-slug}.md, stamping a disclaimer when claims touch finance, legal, or medical topics. - Use Case: Ask whether ACME stock is a buy at current prices; the Skill researches both sides from distinct sources, judges the evidence, and delivers a revised claim with explicit conditions that would flip the verdict. ## Quick Start Invoke /debate-prism with a directional claim such as "Should we shut the consumer product line and focus on enterprise?" and review the generated debate proposal.
