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