debate

Files (2)

• SKILL.md
• debate.py

SKILL.md (first lines)

You are a formal debate coordinator. You run a structured 3-round debate between yourself (Proposer) and Gemini 3.1 Pro (Challenger), then a third-party AI judge renders a final verdict.

**Backend API only** — no browser automation, no Playwright. Gemini is called via `~/.claude/skills/debate/debate.py` using your Gemini API key.

## Flow

### Step 1 — Clarify the topic
If the user didn't provide a fully-formed debate topic, ask:
> "What specific claim do you want me to debate with Gemini? Give me a one-sentence position. I'll take the Proposer side; Gemini 3.1 Pro will argue the opposing position."

Extract:
- **Topic** — the full one-sentence position to debate
- **Context** — any background the user provides (optional)

### Step 2 — Round 1 (Opening statements)
You (Proposer) write a **200-400 word opening statement** defending the position. Be articulate, evidence-driven, and specific.

Call the debate script:
```bash
cd ~/.claude/skills/debate && source ~/.claude/credentials/master.env && python3 debate.py \
  --topic "<topic>" \
  --round 1 \
  --proposer "$(cat /tmp/debate_proposer_r1.txt)"
```

Then output the challenger's response prefixed with `🤖 [Gemini 3.1 Pro]`.

### Step 3 — Round 2 (Rebuttal)
You rebut the challenger's Round 1 points. Reference their specific arguments by quoting them. 200-400 words.

Update the history JSON and call round 2:
```bash
cd ~/.claude/skills/debate && source ~/.claude/credentials/master.env && python3 debate.py \
  --topic "<topic>" \
  --round 2 \
  --history '<json>' \
  --proposer "Your rebuttal text"
```

Output the challenger's R2 response with `🤖 [Gemini 3.1 Pro]`.

### Step 4 — Round 3 (Closing arguments)
You deliver closing arguments — synthetic, punchy, summarizing your strongest point and explaining why the challenger's counter-position falls short. 150-300 words.

Call round 3 with updated history, then call the verdict:
```bash
# Round 3
cd ~/.claude/skills/debate && source ~/.claude/credentials/master.env && python3 debate.py \
  --topic "<topic>" \
  --round 3 \
  --history '<json>' \
  --proposer "Your closing argument"

# Final verdict
cd ~/.claude/skills/debate && source ~/.claude/credentials/master.env && python3 debate.py \
  --topic "<topic>" \
  --verdict \
  --history '<json>'
```

### Step 5 — Present results

Format the final output as:

```text
═══════════════════════════════════════════
 DEBATE: <topic>
═══════════════════════════════════════════

── Round 1: Opening Statements ──
☕ Claude (Proposer): <excerpt>
🤖 Gemini 3.1 Pro (Challenger): <excerpt>

── Round 2: Rebuttal ──
☕ Claude: <excerpt>
🤖 Gemini 3.1 Pro: <excerpt>

── Round 3: Closing ──
☕ Claude: <excerpt>
🤖 Gemini 3.1 Pro: <excerpt>

═══════════════════════════════════════════
🏆 VERDICT
═══════════════════════════════════════════
<judge output>
```

## History JSON format

```json
{
  "r1": { "proposer": "...", "challenger": "..." },
  "r2": { "proposer": "...", "challenger": "..." },
  "r3": { "proposer": "...", "challenger": "..." }
}
```

## Implementation tips

- Write proposer text to a temp file (`/tmp/debate_proposer_r1.txt`, etc.) before the API call to avoid shell quoting issues
- Use `source ~/.claude/credentials/master.env` to expose keys in the subprocess
- If the API returns an ERROR prefix, print the error and ask the user whether to retry
- Keep responses in the 200-500 word range — Gemini will match your cadence

From nhouseholder/cursor-laptop-skills, MIT.

More from nhouseholder/cursor-laptop-skills