AgentStack
SKILL verified Apache-2.0 Self-run

Doncheli Debate

skill-doncheli-don-cheli-sdd-doncheli-debate · by doncheli

Run an adversarial multi-role debate to surface trade-offs and reach a reasoned decision. Activate when user mentions "debate", "discuss", "trade-off", "decision", "compare options", "pros and cons", "choose between".

No reviews yet
0 installs
11 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-doncheli-don-cheli-sdd-doncheli-debate

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Doncheli Debate? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Don Cheli: Adversarial Debate Panel

Roles

Each role is played by a separate internal agent with its own agenda:

| Role | Primary Concern | |----------------|------------------------------------------| | CPO | User value, market fit, time-to-market | | Architect | Scalability, maintainability, tech debt | | QA Lead | Reliability, testability, edge cases | | UX Lead | Usability, accessibility, consistency | | Business | Cost, ROI, risk, compliance |

Instructions

  1. Read the decision or proposal to evaluate
  2. Each role presents its position (2–4 bullets) — what it likes and what it fears
  3. Each role MUST identify at least one concrete problem with every other role's proposal (no free passes)
  4. After all attacks, each role proposes one mitigation or compromise
  5. Synthesize tensions and produce a decision with explicit trade-offs accepted

Output Format

## Debate: 

### Round 1 — Positions
**CPO:** …
**Architect:** …
**QA Lead:** …
**UX Lead:** …
**Business:** …

### Round 2 — Attacks (each role vs. others)
**CPO → Architect:** …
**Architect → CPO:** …
… (all cross-attacks)

### Round 3 — Mitigations
**CPO proposes:** …
… (one per role)

### Decision
**Chosen approach:** …
**Trade-offs accepted:** …
**Conditions / guardrails:** …

Quality Gate

  • No role may agree unconditionally with another — every role must raise at least one concern
  • The Decision section must name at least two trade-offs explicitly accepted
  • If consensus is impossible, output "DEADLOCK" and list the 2–3 unresolved tensions for human escalation

Do not use this skill when

  • The decision is already made and the user only wants implementation help
  • The question has a single objectively correct answer (use doncheli-reasoning instead)

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.