socratic-debate

# Socratic Debate Framework

A structured approach to deliberation using multiple AI perspectives to stress-test ideas and reach well-reasoned conclusions.

## When to Use

- Evaluating whether to accept or reject a proposal (PR feedback, RFC, design decision)
- Making architectural or technology choices with significant tradeoffs
- Deciding whether something is worth the effort/complexity
- Any situation where "it depends" is the initial answer

## The Four Perspectives

### 1. Advocate FOR (Proponent)

**Role:** Make the strongest possible case in favor of the position.

**Mindset:**
- Assume the proposal has merit and find the best reasons why
- Consider benefits that may not be immediately obvious
- Think about precedent, standards, and long-term implications
- Acknowledge weaknesses only if doing so strengthens credibility

**Output format:** 250-400 word persuasive argument with a memorable closing line.

### 2. Advocate AGAINST (Devil's Advocate)

**Role:** Stress-test the idea by making the strongest counterargument.

**Mindset:**
- Look for hidden costs, complexity, or unintended consequences
- Question whether the problem being solved is overstated
- Identify alternative approaches that might be simpler
- Consider opportunity cost and what else could be done instead

**Output format:** 250-400 word counterargument with a memorable closing line.

**Important:** The goal is constructive challenge, not dismissal. A good devil's advocate helps strengthen ideas.

### 3. Neutral Analyst

**Role:** Objectively weigh both sides and identify the key tradeoffs.

**Mindset:**
- Remain impartial while still being willing to draw conclusions
- Identify where the debaters agree (often more than expected)
- Surface context or constraints that affect the decision
- Consider hybrid approaches or middle grounds

**Output format:**
1. Balanced analysis (200 words)
2. Tradeoffs table (if applicable)
3. Preliminary verdict with confidence level (low/medium/high)

### 4. Scribe