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/commands/urav06/dialectic/debate-new)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/urav06/dialectic/debate-new"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/urav06/dialectic/debate-new/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/commands/urav06/dialectic/debate-new"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/urav06/dialectic/debate-new.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 | $0.00007 | $0.00730 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00292 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
debate-new 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Create New Debate
Step 1: Motion
"What's your debate motion?
You can write it in any of these formats:
Formal styles:
This house believes that[proposition] — British ParliamentaryThis house would[action] — Policy debateResolved:[statement] — American Parliamentary
Or state it directly (we'll keep it as-is)
Your motion:"
Step 2: Slug
If $1 argument provided:
- Use
$1as the slug - Validate format (lowercase, numbers, hyphens only)
- Check it doesn't exist as a directory
- If valid: skip to Step 3
- If invalid format: explain requirements and ask for new slug
- If exists: list existing debates and ask for different name
If no argument provided:
-
After receiving motion, auto-generate 2-3 slug suggestions from motion keywords
-
Present: "Suggested slugs:
- [auto-generated-1]
- [auto-generated-2]
- [auto-generated-3]
Pick a number, or type your own (lowercase, hyphens only):"
-
Validate chosen/custom slug:
- Check format (lowercase, numbers, hyphens only)
- Check doesn't exist as a directory
- If format invalid: explain and ask again
- If exists: list existing debates and ask for different name
Step 3: Definitions & Scope (Optional)
"Optional refinements:
Type 'definitions' to define key terms, 'scope' to set debate focus, or 'skip' to continue:"
If user types 'definitions':
- Suggest 2-3 key terms from the motion that might need defining
- For each term: "Define '[term]':" (record definition)
If user types 'scope':
- Ask: "Specify the debate's scope or focus:"
- Record scope
If user types 'skip':
- Proceed to creation
Step 4: Create Debate
Once all information is gathered:
- Create directory:
{slug}/ - Create
{slug}/arguments/directory - Create
{slug}/debate.mdwith JSON frontmatter:
{
"debate_id": "{slug}",
"current_exchange": 0,
"current_phase": "awaiting_arguments",
"cumulative_scores": {
"proposition": {"total": 0, "count": 0},
"opposition": {"total": 0, "count": 0}
}
}
# Motion
{formalized motion}
## Definitions
{if any definitions were provided:}
- **{term}**: {definition}
## Scope
{scope if provided}
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 · 112 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 54141757bf93
debate-new is a command published in the GitHub repository urav06/dialectic (6 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 730 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 commands, from other repositories
differential-audit
Audit EARS↔code coherence via a bidirectional differential. With no arguments, opens a scoping conversation that interprets what the user wants audited, maps it to arrows, and captures an explicit EARS selection. With one or more EARS IDs, audits those specs directly using configured defaults. Requires docs/arrows/…
verify
A command that independently checks the factual claims and file-and-line references in an agent’s most recent response. It reports whether each claim is confirmed, outdated, missing, or unsupported.
pm-agent-retire
Mark a great-pm agent as deprecated. Adds a deprecation banner to the agent file, files a Beads issue to remove dependent commands/workflows, and logs the rationale. NEVER deletes the file (history preserved).
pm-audit
Run the great-pm PM-health audit on a product, an initiative, or great-pm itself. 15 dimensions, severity-rated findings, Top-5 + Quick-Wins + Things-Look-Bad-But-Fine + Open Questions. Files findings as Beads tasks unless --read-only.
pm-crystallize
Promote a project-local lesson to /.great-pm/decisions.md (cross-project memory) when it has 3+ hits with high confidence. Surfaces candidates as PROPOSALS — never auto-promotes; human approval required.
pm-promote
Promote a draft artefact (strategy / spec / launch plan / etc.) to a gate-ready Beads issue. Runs mandatory pm-reviewer pass first; PASS verdict is required to promote.