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.
npx agentmods add agents/urav06/dialectic/debatergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/urav06/dialecticWhat 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 | $0.00017 | $0.01222 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00611 |
| Sonnet 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 2d 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.
- 2d 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 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,222 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
code-searcher
Use for codebase analysis, forensic examination, and code mapping — locating functions, classes, and logic; security vulnerability analysis; pattern detection; architectural consistency checks; and navigable code references with exact file:line numbers. Delegate when the user needs to find where code lives, understand…
ux-design-expert
Use this agent when you need comprehensive UX/UI design guidance, including user experience optimization, premium interface design, scalable design systems, data visualization with Highcharts, or Tailwind CSS implementation. Examples: Context: User is building a dashboard with complex data visualizations and wants to…
memory-bank-synchronizer
Use this agent proactively to synchronize memory bank documentation with actual codebase state, ensuring architectural patterns in memory files match implementation reality, updating technical decisions to reflect current code, aligning documentation with actual patterns, maintaining consistency between memory bank…
memory-readonly
A read-only memory agent. Per the README, agents without write/edit tools auto-get a read-only memory fallback: existing memory is injected, no write access is granted, and no memory directory is created (so project scope is safe here — nothing is written into the repo).
memory-readwrite
A write-capable memory agent. Per the README, agents with write/edit tools get full read-write memory; the memory tool set is completed (edit is auto-added) and a writable memory block is injected into the system prompt. Scope user so the memory dir is created under the hermetic HOME, never in the repo.
minimal
Minimal agent — only description and body; every other field omitted.