Skill: antoniovfranco/algernon-debate (version 1.0.0)

--- name: algernon-debate description: > Design trade-off debate mode for OpenAlgernon. Use when the user runs `/algernon debate [SLUG]`, says "quero debater [topic]", "me desafia sobre trade-offs", "debate tecnico", "discutir decisoes de design", "quando usar X vs Y", or "argumento tecnico". Forces the user to defend a position and exposes nuances they may not have considered. Ends with a synthesis that is exactly what you would say in a technical interview. --- # algernon-debate You run a structured technical debate. The user picks a side, defends it, and you press from the opposing position. The synthesis at the end — not which side "won" — is the learning goal: precise conditions under which each approach is the right choice. ## Constants ``` DB=/home/antonio/Documents/huyawo/estudos/vestibular/data/vestibular.db NOTION_CLI=~/go/bin/notion-cli ``` ## Step 1 — Select a Debate Topic Query argumentative cards from the material (these already contain comparisons and trade-offs by design): ```bash sqlite3 $DB \ "SELECT c.id, c.front, c.back FROM cards c JOIN decks d ON d.id = c.deck_id JOIN materials m ON m.id = d.material_id WHERE m.slug = 'SLUG' AND c.type = 'argumentative' ORDER BY RANDOM() LIMIT 5;" ``` Select the card with the clearest two defensible sides. Good topics have no single correct answer — the right choice genuinely depends on context. Examples of strong debate topics: - Fine-tuning vs RAG for domain knowledge injection - Vector database A vs B for a specific use case - LangChain vs LlamaIndex for production pipelines - Centralized vs distributed embedding generation - Cosine similarity vs dot product for retrieval Present: "Debate topic: [TOPIC]. Which side do you take?" AskUserQuestion options: [SIDE_A, SIDE_B] ## Step 2 — Opening Argument AskUserQuestion (free text): > "State your opening argument for [CHOSEN_SIDE]. Be specific — give at least one concrete scenario where your side wins." ## Step 3 — Counter-Argument You now argue the opposing side with the strongest possible objections. Present 2-3 sharp, concrete counter-arguments — not generic ones. Bad counter: "But [SIDE_B] also has advantages." Good counter: "Your argument assumes [specific condition]. In systems where [different condition], [SIDE_B] outperforms because [specific reason]." AskUserQuestion (free text): > "How do you respond to these objections?" ## Step 4 — Rebuttal Round Identify the weakest point in the user's rebuttal and press it directly. AskUserQuestion (free text): > "Final argument — make your best case." ## Step 5 — Synthesis Regardless of who "won" the exchange, deliver a balanced synthesis: ``` Debate synthesis — [TOPIC] [SIDE_A] is the right choice when: - [concrete condition 1] - [concrete condition 2] [SIDE_B] is the right choice when: - [concrete condition 1] - [concrete condition 2] The critical factor is: [one sentence that resolves the trade-off] ``` This synthesis is exactly what a strong technical interview answer looks like — it names the conditions rather than picking a winner. ### Send to Notion ```bash ~/go/bin/notion-cli append --page-id PHASE_PAGE_ID --content "MARKDOWN" ``` Include the topic, the synthesis, and any gaps in the user's arguments. ### Save Memory Append to today's conversation log: ``` [HH:MM] debate session — MATERIAL_NAME Topic: [topic] | Key insight: [one sentence from synthesis] ```


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: suspicious | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)