When should I avoid using the debate synthesis skill?

Skip this process for time-critical decisions requiring instant action, cases where a single clear expert exists, or when there is no genuine tension or disagreement between the options.

How many roles should be involved in a debate?

The skill is optimized for 2 to 5 roles. A binary debate (2 roles) is great for 'yes/no' decisions, while 3 to 5 roles are ideal for multi-stakeholder complexity. More than 5 roles can make the synthesis too unwieldy.

What is the primary benefit of using this skill?

It prevents 'groupthink' and single-viewpoint bias by forcing the AI to argue from multiple legitimate perspectives—such as engineering, finance, and product—before reaching a final conclusion.

What kind of 'synthesis patterns' does the skill use?

It uses several approaches including Weighted Synthesis (prioritizing one view with safeguards for others), Sequencing (doing X then Y), and Conditional Strategy (if A occurs, do X).

Multi-Perspective Decision Synthesis

Name: Multi-Perspective Decision Synthesis
Author: lyndonkl

bylyndonkl

•

Productivity & Workflow

Evaluates complex decisions by simulating stakeholder perspectives, facilitating structured debates, and synthesizing conflicting priorities into actionable strategies.

About

This skill provides a rigorous framework for navigating high-stakes decisions where stakeholders hold competing priorities like growth vs. sustainability or speed vs. quality. By systematically roleplaying authentic viewpoints and pressure-testing ideas through structured debate, it surfaces hidden assumptions and explores incompatible value sets. The process concludes with a coherent synthesis that acknowledges trade-offs and explains prioritization, ensuring that final recommendations are balanced, pressure-tested, and strategically sound rather than based on a single-point analysis.

Key Features

Structured debate frameworks including point-counterpoint and crux-finding
Advanced synthesis patterns for integrating conflicting expert opinions
Decision framing tools to identify productive roles and irreducible trade-offs
Authentic stakeholder roleplay to simulate diverse viewpoints without strawmanning
Quality validation rubrics to ensure comprehensive and actionable recommendations
8 GitHub stars

Use Cases

Balancing technical debt vs. feature velocity in software architecture decisions
Evaluating build-vs-buy scenarios involving Engineering, Finance, and Sales priorities
Pressure-testing product strategies before committing significant resources

About

Key Features

Structured debate frameworks including point-counterpoint and crux-finding
Advanced synthesis patterns for integrating conflicting expert opinions
Decision framing tools to identify productive roles and irreducible trade-offs
Authentic stakeholder roleplay to simulate diverse viewpoints without strawmanning
Quality validation rubrics to ensure comprehensive and actionable recommendations
8 GitHub stars

Use Cases

Balancing technical debt vs. feature velocity in software architecture decisions
Evaluating build-vs-buy scenarios involving Engineering, Finance, and Sales priorities
Pressure-testing product strategies before committing significant resources