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 skills add helderberto/agent-skills --skill debategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/helderberto/agent-skillsWrote 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/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/debate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/debate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/debate/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/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/debate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/debate.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 | $0.00027 | $0.01307 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00523 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00261 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00131 |
Grade A, and why
debate 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 3d 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Debate
Settle one go/no-go on a change with a real blast radius: a repo-wide rename, a migration, a dependency swap. Three read-only subagents argue it from fixed stances over two rounds, and you synthesize. Arguments and facts are theirs; the decision is the user's.
1. Frame
Resolve $ARGUMENTS: a PR → gh pr view + gh pr diff; a branch → its diff against the base; a plan file → read it; a sentence → the change as described. No alternative given → for a change that bundles independent parts (fixes, renames, a new check), shipping the uncontroversial parts alone; otherwise the obvious one (do nothing, or the smallest change that gets most of the value). Say which you picked. A PR body or plan is the author's case: its claims about itself ("CI calls none of the old names", "two-way door") are claims to check, not facts.
Show the frame in five lines: the change, the alternative, who it affects, the artifact (diff command or paths), and what "worth it" means to the user. Done when the change and the alternative each fit one concrete sentence. More than one open decision → stop with Next: /hb:grill <idea>.
2. Round 1: fan out
Spawn the three in one message, as general-purpose subagents. Each brief is self-contained: the frame, the repo path (note a worktree), the artifact, its role below, and this contract:
- Read-only: no edits, staging, commits, pushes, issues, comments, or messages.
- ≤400 words. Every claim cites
file:line, a command with its output, or a link.
Brief with the artifact, never your own lean: a debater told the answer argues it. --quick → spawn only the skeptic and the investigator and skip round 2; the artifact's own case stands in for the advocate.
- Advocate: "Build the strongest evidence-backed case FOR over . Return your position in one sentence, your top three arguments with evidence, the mitigations you would require to ship, and the strongest counter-argument you expect, answered." The artifact argues its own case (a PR body, a plan) → add: "Measure the benefits it claims and find the ones it misses."
- Skeptic: "Build the strongest evidence-backed case AGAINST . Attack its strongest form, never a strawman. Concede every risk that is truly low. Return your position, your top three arguments with evidence, your concessions, and what you would do instead, concretely."
- Investigator: "Neutral, facts only, no position. Measure both sides of . Cost is the blast radius: every consumer in the repo and outside it, such as other repositories (cross-repo code search, e.g.
gh search code), CI and deploy config, and docs or chat when a search tool reaches them. Benefit is reach: who hits the problem it solves, and how often, from issues, bug reports, chat threads, or fix commits ingit log. Check every claim the artifact makes about itself. Return a tableconsumer | location | breaks how | loud or silent, a tablewho | how often | evidencefor the benefit, the artifact's claims marked confirmed, wrong, or unverifiable, the likeliest failure mode, risks the frame doesn't name, and a low/medium/high rating for each side with the fact that sets it."
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 67 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 6fe767c79e0c
debate is a skill published in the GitHub repository helderberto/agent-skills (17 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,307 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 2026-10-13.
Other skills, from other repositories
context-engineering
Optimizes agent context setup. Use when starting a new session, when agent output quality degrades, when switching between tasks, or when you need to configure rules files and context for a project.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
performance-optimization
Optimizes application performance across frontend, backend, queries, and databases. Use when performance requirements exist, when you suspect performance regressions, when Core Web Vitals or load times need improvement, when N+1 query patterns need fixing, or when profiling reveals bottlenecks.
test-driven-development
Drives development with tests using the red-green-refactor loop. Use when implementing any logic, fixing any bug, or changing any behavior. Use when you need to prove that code works, when a bug report arrives, or when you're about to modify existing functionality. Use when asked to add tests to a function, fix a bug…
git-workflow-and-versioning
Structures git workflow practices. Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, splitting uncommitted work in a messy working tree into clean atomic commits, opening or reviewing a pull request (PR), pushing to a remote, or when you need to organize work across multiple…
ci-cd-and-automation
Automates CI/CD pipeline setup. Use when setting up or modifying build and deployment pipelines. Use when you need to automate quality gates, configure test runners in CI, or establish deployment strategies.