deliberation-debate-red-teaming

# Deliberation, Debate & Red Teaming

## What Is It?

Deliberation-debate-red-teaming is a structured adversarial process where you intentionally challenge plans, designs, or decisions from multiple critical perspectives to surface blind spots, hidden assumptions, and vulnerabilities before they cause real damage.

**Quick example:**

**Proposal:** "Launch new feature to all users next week"

**Red team critiques:**
- **Security:** "No penetration testing done, could expose user data"
- **Operations:** "No runbook for rollback, deployment on Friday risks weekend outage"
- **Customer:** "Feature breaks existing workflow for power users (20% of revenue)"
- **Legal:** "GDPR consent flow unclear, could trigger regulatory investigation"

**Result:** Delay launch 2 weeks, address security/legal/ops gaps, add feature flag for gradual rollout

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Deliberation & Red Teaming Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define the proposal and stakes
- [ ] Step 2: Assign adversarial roles
- [ ] Step 3: Generate critiques and challenges
- [ ] Step 4: Synthesize findings and prioritize risks
- [ ] Step 5: Recommend mitigations and revisions
```

**Step 1: Define the proposal and stakes**

Ask user for the plan/decision to evaluate (specific proposal, not vague idea), stakes (what happens if this fails), current confidence level (how certain are they), and deadline (when must decision be made). Understanding stakes helps calibrate critique intensity. See [Scoping Questions](#scoping-questions).

**Step 2: Assign adversarial roles**

Identify critical perspectives that could expose blind spots. Choose 3-5 roles based on proposal type (security, legal, operations, customer, competitor, etc.). Each role has different incentives and concerns. See [Adversarial Role Types](#adversarial-role-types) and [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for role assignment guidance.

**Step 3: Generate critiques and challenges**

For each role, generate