Use when facing decisions with multiple legitimate perspectives and inherent tensions. Invoke when stakeholders have competing priorities (growth vs. sustainability, speed vs. quality, innovation vs. risk), need to pressure-test ideas from different angles before committing, exploring tradeoffs between incompatible values, synthesizing conflicting expert opinions into coherent strategy, or surfacing assumptions that single-viewpoint analysis would miss.
View on GitHublyndonkl/claude
thinking-frameworks-skills
January 24, 2026
Select agents to install to:
npx add-skill https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude/blob/main/skills/chain-roleplay-debate-synthesis/SKILL.md -a claude-code --skill chain-roleplay-debate-synthesisInstallation paths:
.claude/skills/chain-roleplay-debate-synthesis/# Chain Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Frame the decision and identify roles - [ ] Step 2: Roleplay each perspective authentically - [ ] Step 3: Structured debate between viewpoints - [ ] Step 4: Synthesize into coherent recommendation - [ ] Step 5: Validate synthesis quality ``` **Step 1: Frame the decision and identify roles** State the decision clearly as a question, identify 2-5 stakeholder perspectives or roles that have legitimate but competing interests, and clarify what a successful synthesis looks like. See [Decision Framing](#decision-framing) for guidance on choosing productive roles. **Step 2: Roleplay each perspective authentically** For each role, articulate their position, priorities, concerns, and evidence. Genuinely advocate for each viewpoint without strawmanning. See [Roleplay Guidelines](#roleplay-guidelines) for authentic advocacy techniques and use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for complete structure. **Step 3: Structured debate between viewpoints** Facilitate direct clash between perspectives on key points of disagreement. Surface tensions, challenge assumptions, test edge cases, and identify cruxes (what evidence would change each perspective's mind). See [Debate Structure](#debate-structure) for debate formats and facilitation techniques. **Step 4: Synthesize into coherent recommendation** Integrate insights from all perspectives into a unified decision that acknowledges tradeoffs, incorporates valid concerns from each viewpoint, and explains what's being prioritized and why. See [Synthesis Patterns](#synthesis-patterns) for integration approaches and [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for synthesis framework. For complex multi-stakeholder decisions, see [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md). **Step 5: Validate synthesis quality** Check synthesis against [resources/evaluato