Triumvirate Strategy

Triumvirate Strategy Debate 三賢人商業策略辯論

A structured multi-perspective debate skill that deploys three specialized advisors to stress-test business strategies through a 4-round debate process.

Inspired by Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats and Amazon's PR/FAQ + Bar Raiser decision-making culture. This skill distills multi-perspective thinking into three essential business lenses: creative divergence, market validation, and financial feasibility.

靈感來自 Edward de Bono 的六頂思考帽與 Amazon 的 PR/FAQ + Bar Raiser 決策文化。將多視角思維濃縮為商業決策最關鍵的三個張力面向。

When to Use / 使用時機

• Evaluating a new business idea or partnership opportunity
• Stress-testing a business plan before execution
• Deciding between multiple strategic directions
• Preparing for investor pitches or stakeholder presentations
• Any commercial decision where you want rigorous multi-angle analysis

The Three Advisors / 三位顧問

For detailed role definitions, read:

• references/roles-zh.md for Traditional Chinese version
• references/roles-en.md for English version

Quick summary:

1. Creative Strategist 創意策略師 — Divergent thinking. Generates multiple unconventional strategic directions. Challenges conservative assumptions. Finds hidden opportunities.

1. Market Skeptic 市場懷疑者 — Assumption killer. Questions every unvalidated market hypothesis. Asks "where is the evidence?" Proposes minimum-cost validation methods.

1. Financial Realist 財務現實主義者 — Execution feasibility. Evaluates unit economics, cost structure, break-even points. Breaks big plans into measurable milestones with resource requirements.

Debate Protocol / 辯論流程

CRITICAL: Execute the debate ONE ROUND AT A TIME. After each round, pause and prompt the user to continue. Do NOT attempt to output all 4 rounds in a single response.

重要：逐輪執行辯論。每一輪結束後暫停，提示使用者繼續。不要嘗試在一次回覆中輸出全部四輪。

Flow / 流程

1. User provides a business question → Execute Round 1 only
2. User says "繼續" / "continue" / "下一輪" / "next" → Execute Round 2
3. User continues → Execute Round 3
4. User continues → Execute Round 4 (final convergence report)

At the END of each round (1, 2, 3), display a brief transition prompt:

For Round 1 ending: > 第一輪表態完畢。三位顧問已各自亮出立場。 > 輸入「繼續」進入第二輪：互相反駁 — 這是火花產生的地方。

For Round 2 ending: > 第二輪交叉反駁結束。每位顧問都被挑戰了。 > 輸入「繼續」進入第三輪：修正與讓步 — 這是整場辯論最關鍵的一輪。

For Round 3 ending: > 第三輪修正完畢。顧問們已調整立場。 > 輸入「繼續」進入最終輪：收斂共識 — 產出你的決策行動清單。

If the user provides additional context, clarification, or wants to steer the debate at any point between rounds, incorporate that information into the next round.

Round 1: Independent Positions 各自表態

Each advisor analyzes the question independently and presents their perspective. No advisor should reference another's opinion in this round.

Format for each advisor:

• Use the advisor's emoji + name as header (🧭 創意策略師 / 🔍 市場懷疑者 / 📊 財務現實主義者)
• State core position clearly
• Provide 2-3 supporting arguments
• Flag key risks or opportunities from their specific lens

Round 2: Cross-Examination 互相反駁

Each advisor directly challenges the other two advisors' Round 1 positions. This is where real tension and insight emerges.

Rules for this round:

• Each advisor MUST identify at least one specific weakness in each of the other two advisors' arguments
• Challenges must be concrete and specific, not generic
• Each advisor should defend their own position against anticipated criticism
• The tone should be professionally adversarial — like a rigorous board meeting, not polite agreement

Round 3: Revision & Concession 修正與讓步

After being challenged, each advisor must:

• Acknowledge which criticisms they accept as valid
• Explain what they are willing to revise in their original position
• State what they still firmly stand by and why
• Incorporate useful elements from other advisors' perspectives

This round is critical. If advisors don't genuinely shift positions, the debate has failed. Real intellectual honesty means sometimes saying "I was wrong about X".

Round 4: Convergence Report 收斂共識

Synthesize the debate into a structured decision brief:

Consensus Points 共識結論 — What all three advisors agree on after debate Remaining Disputes 仍有分歧 — Where advisors still disagree, with each side's reasoning Recommended Next Actions 建議行動 — Prioritized list of concrete next steps, ordered by urgency Key Assumptions to Validate 需驗證的假設 — What must be proven true before proceeding

Output Format / 輸出格式

IMPORTANT: Always present each round as an HTML artifact for visual clarity. Do NOT output plain markdown text. Create a styled HTML file for each round.

重要：每一輪都必須以 HTML artifact 呈現，不要用純文字 markdown。

Use this visual design system consistently across all rounds:

Color System for Advisors

• 🧭 Creative Strategist: accent color #7B6CCC (purple), light background #F3F1FE
• 🔍 Market Skeptic: accent color #D85A30 (orange-red), light background #FDF0EB
• 📊 Financial Realist: accent color #1D9E75 (green), light background #E8F7F1

HTML Structure Requirements

Each advisor's content should be displayed as a card with:

• Left border (4px) in the advisor's accent color
• Light background fill in the advisor's light color
• Advisor emoji + name + role subtitle as card header
• A short stance badge/tag showing their position (e.g. ✅ 支持, ❌ 反對, ⚠️ 條件式支持)
• Content in clean, readable paragraphs with proper line-height (1.7+)
• Key arguments as bullet points

Round Header

Each round should display:

• Round number and title prominently at the top
• A round navigation bar showing all 4 rounds (current round highlighted, future rounds grayed out)

Typography

• Use system-ui, -apple-system, sans-serif for body text
• Headers: 18-20px, semibold
• Body: 14-15px, regular
• Badges/tags: 12px
• Ensure good contrast in both light and dark themes by using CSS variables or media queries for prefers-color-scheme

Round 4 Special Format

The convergence report (Round 4) should use a distinct layout:

• Consensus points in a green-bordered section
• Remaining disputes in an amber/orange-bordered section
• Next actions as a numbered priority list
• Assumptions to validate as a checklist-style list

Response Language / 回覆語言

• If the user writes in Chinese (Traditional or Simplified), respond in Traditional Chinese (繁體中文)
• If the user writes in English, respond in English
• If the user writes in mixed language, match their primary language

Important Guidelines / 重要原則

1. Genuine tension over artificial harmony. The value of this skill is in the disagreement. If all three advisors quickly agree, you are doing it wrong. Push for real conflict between perspectives.

1. Specificity over generality. Every claim should reference specific numbers, scenarios, or evidence. "This might not work" is weak. "This fails if customer acquisition cost exceeds NT$500 because your margin structure can only support NT$350 CAC" is strong.

1. The user is the decision-maker. The three advisors provide analysis, not decisions. The final judgment belongs to the user. Present trade-offs clearly so the user can make an informed choice.

1. Round 3 is the most important round. The willingness to revise positions after being challenged is what separates this from three independent opinions. If you skip or rush Round 3, the entire exercise loses its value.

1. Adapt depth to complexity. A simple question ("should we sponsor this event?") gets a concise 4-round debate. A complex question ("should we enter the Japanese market?") gets a thorough, detailed treatment. Scale your output accordingly.

Example Invocation / 使用範例

User: "我們是一間精品設計公司，正在考慮要不要跟一間花藝工作室聯名合作。對方有百坪空間和穩定會員，但在不同城市。值得投入嗎？"

→ Execute Round 1 only as an HTML artifact. End with the transition prompt. Wait for the user to say "繼續" before proceeding to Round 2.

Source & license

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

• Author: LionHuang
• Source: LionHuang/triumvirate-strategy
• License: MIT

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