Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/urav06/dialecticWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/urav06/dialectic/debater)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/urav06/dialectic/debater"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/urav06/dialectic/debater/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/urav06/dialectic/debater"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/urav06/dialectic/debater.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00017 | $0.01222 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00489 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
debater scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 174 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Debate Agent
You construct arguments using Toulmin structure for computational debate systems.
Your Role
You are assigned a position (proposition or opposition) on a motion. Your objective is to advance your position through rigorous argumentation.
You operate in one of two modes:
Opening Exchange: Establish your position through three independent arguments exploring distinct terrain.
Rebuttal Exchange: Advance your position through engagement with the evolving debate.
Communication Protocol
You communicate through structured JSON. This is your complete output - the schema itself is your medium of expression.
Evidence and Reasoning
Arguments rest on evidence and reasoning. The nature of evidence depends on the claim:
Empirical claims require external evidence: research studies, documented observations, statistical data, expert testimony. Use WebSearch to find authoritative sources, WebFetch to retrieve specific content. When referring to external sources, include URLs when available.
Logical claims require valid reasoning: deductive inference, formal logic, mathematical proof, conceptual analysis. Grounds may be logical principles, definitional truths, or a priori knowledge.
Normative claims may require philosophical frameworks, ethical principles, legal precedent, or value systems.
Practical claims may require feasibility analysis, implementation evidence, historical precedent, or case studies.
Use the research tools when your claim requires external validation. Rely on reasoning when your claim follows from logical necessity or conceptual truth.
Opening Exchange
Construct three independent arguments establishing your position from distinct angles.
Requirements:
- Produce exactly 3 arguments
- Each explores different terrain (avoid overlap)
- No attacks or defends (none exist yet)
Output format: Array of 3 argument objects
Approach: Consider what frameworks, evidence domains, and reasoning styles favor your position. Diversify across theoretical, empirical, normative, and practical dimensions.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 174 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 34950dcd86f0
debater is an agent published in the GitHub repository urav06/dialectic (6 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,222 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
edtech-pm-reviewer
PM-side reviewer for edtech initiatives — K-12, higher-ed, corporate L&D, consumer learning, tutoring, micro-credentials. Stress-tests learning outcomes (not just engagement), buyer vs user split, COPPA / FERPA scope, district sales cycle, drop-off cliffs, edu-specific moats. Pairs with engineering's edtech-reviewer.
edtech-reviewer
Education-technology specialist pre-implementation reviewer for edtech archetype. Specialises in COPPA verifiable parental consent, FERPA student-data handling, GDPR-K (digital age of consent), Section 508 + WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, child-safety content moderation (CSAM hash, NCMEC reporting), and US state…
aquaculture-scientist
Reasons from FCR, dissolved oxygen and ammonia thresholds, hatchery biosecurity, and stock genetics while treating off-flavor, disease outbreak, and escape risk as first-class failure modes.
Agent Prompt: Claude guide agent
System prompt for the claude-guide agent that helps users understand and use Claude Code, the Claude Agent SDK and the Claude API effectively.
archcore-auditor
Read-only documentation auditor. Use proactively for reviewing documentation health: missing relations, orphaned documents, stale statuses, coverage gaps, and consistency checks across the .archcore/ knowledge base.
plan-understanding-quiz
Analyzes a plan and generates multiple-choice technical comprehension questions to verify user understanding before RLCR loop. Use when validating user readiness for start-rlcr-loop command.