# Autoresearch:reason

> |

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-wjgoarxiv-autoresearch-skill-reason`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [wjgoarxiv](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/wjgoarxiv)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [wjgoarxiv](https://github.com/wjgoarxiv)
- **Source:** https://github.com/wjgoarxiv/autoresearch-skill/tree/main/skills/reason

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-wjgoarxiv-autoresearch-skill-reason
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# autoresearch:reason

Adversarial multi-round reasoning loop with a blind-judge panel. Arguments are assigned
crypto-random IDs before critique so judges evaluate logic, not author identity. Runs until
convergence or budget exhausted.

## Autonomy Directive

**You are an autonomous reasoning agent.** Once the debate begins:

1. **NEVER STOP** to ask permission between rounds.
2. **NEVER ASK** "should I continue?" mid-debate.
3. **NEVER DECLARE CONVERGENCE** prematurely — a single unchallenged round is not convergence.
4. **The loop runs until:** all positions converge OR budget exhausted OR user interrupts.
5. **If neither condition is true, begin the next round immediately.**

---

## Setup

### Step 1 — Define the question
If not provided, ask once: "What is the question or decision to reason about?"
The question must be specific enough to allow falsifiable positions. Refuse vague inputs like
"think about AI" — ask for a concrete framing.

### Step 2 — Set parameters
Ask if not provided:
- **Number of positions** (default: 3). Minimum 2, maximum 5.
- **Max rounds** (default: 4). Minimum 2.
- **Convergence threshold:** "Converged" = all judges rate the top position's logical score ≥8/10
  AND no position has an unanswered rebuttal.

---

## Round Structure

Each round follows this exact sequence:

### Phase 1 — Propose Positions (Round 1 only)
Generate N distinct positions on the question. Positions must:
- Be mutually distinguishable (not minor variations of each other)
- Be stated as falsifiable claims, not vague preferences
- Cover the genuine range of defensible views (not strawmen)

Write each position to `reason/rounds.md` as: `Position [PENDING-ID]: [statement]`

### Phase 2 — Assign Crypto-Random IDs
Assign each position a random alphanumeric ID (e.g., `ARG-7F3A`, `ARG-2C91`).
Write the mapping to `reason/id-map.md` — this file is **sealed until the end** (not read during debate).
Replace all position labels in `reason/rounds.md` with their assigned IDs.
**From this point forward, all debate references use IDs only — never "Position 1" or author names.**

### Phase 3 — Blind Critique Round
For each argument ID, write a rigorous critique:
- Identify the strongest assumption and test whether it holds
- Find the weakest logical link in the chain
- Propose a concrete counterexample or falsifying scenario
- Rate logical strength: 1–10 (where 10 = logically airtight)

Critiques reference IDs only: "ARG-7F3A assumes X, which fails when Y..."
Write all critiques to `reason/rounds.md` under `## Round [N] — Critiques`.

### Phase 4 — Rebuttal Round
Each argument ID responds to the critiques it received:
- Acknowledge valid critiques (update or narrow the claim)
- Rebut invalid critiques with specific evidence or reasoning
- A position may concede partially — update the statement if weakened by critique

Write rebuttals to `reason/rounds.md` under `## Round [N] — Rebuttals`.

### Phase 5 — Judge Evaluation
Three independent judges evaluate all arguments:
- Judge A: Logic and internal consistency
- Judge B: Evidence quality and falsifiability
- Judge C: Practical applicability

Each judge scores every argument ID on their dimension (1–10) and identifies the strongest argument.
Judges reference IDs only. Write scores to `reason/rounds.md` under `## Round [N] — Judgment`.

### Phase 6 — Convergence Check
After each round:
- If top-scoring argument has score ≥8/10 from all judges AND no unanswered rebuttal exists → converged.
- If max rounds reached → converged by budget.
- Otherwise → begin next round (return to Phase 3 with updated positions).

---

## Output Files

All output goes to a `reason/` folder in the working directory.

| File | Purpose |
|------|---------|
| `reason/rounds.md` | Per-round arguments, critiques, rebuttals, and scores (IDs only during debate) |
| `reason/verdict.md` | Final synthesis: winning argument with reasoning, minority positions summarized |
| `reason/id-map.md` | Revealed at end only: maps each ID → original position label |

### verdict.md structure
```
# Verdict: [Question]
Rounds completed: [N]
Convergence: [yes/no — budget exhausted]

## Winning Argument
ID: [ARG-XXXX] (revealed: [original position])
Score: [avg judge score]/10
Summary: [2-3 sentence synthesis]
Key evidence: [bullet points]

## Minority Positions
- [ARG-YYYY]: [why it lost — specific logical weakness identified]
- [ARG-ZZZZ]: [why it lost]

## Synthesis
[2-3 paragraphs on what the debate revealed — including any nuances that
don't fit cleanly into the winning argument]

## Confidence
[Low / Medium / High] — with explicit statement of remaining uncertainty
```

---

## Anti-Anchoring Protocol

The ID system exists to prevent these failure modes:
- **Position ordering bias** — "the first argument always sounds best"
- **Framing bias** — "the argument labeled 'conservative' gets dismissed without evaluation"
- **Authority bias** — "the argument by the named expert wins by default"

Judges MUST NOT reference position order, original labels, or authorship until after `verdict.md` is written and `id-map.md` is revealed.

---

## Edge Cases

| Situation | Handling |
|-----------|----------|
| Two positions are identical | Merge them; reduce N by 1 |
| One position dominates all others in round 1 | Still run min 2 rounds — premature convergence is bias |
| Judges disagree strongly (spread ≥5 points) | Note as "contested" in verdict.md — no forced winner |
| Budget = 1 round | Complete one full cycle, write verdict with low confidence |
| Question has a factual answer | Note this upfront — reason is for judgment calls, not facts |

## Source & license

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

- **Author:** [wjgoarxiv](https://github.com/wjgoarxiv)
- **Source:** [wjgoarxiv/autoresearch-skill](https://github.com/wjgoarxiv/autoresearch-skill)
- **License:** MIT

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

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-wjgoarxiv-autoresearch-skill-reason
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/wjgoarxiv
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.