Debate

Real Claude vs GPT multi-round debate. Use when you need a second opinion, want to debate architecture decisions, or evaluate competing approaches with multi-model collaboration.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add dr-code/tessera --skill debate

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

3.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

/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

If tessera MCP is configured in this session, call graph_continue then graph_retrieve with the debate topic keywords to pull relevant codebase context.
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>