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 yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill adversarial-debate-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engineWrote 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/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/adversarial-debate-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/adversarial-debate-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/adversarial-debate-protocol/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/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/adversarial-debate-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/adversarial-debate-protocol.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00030 | $0.00500 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00250 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-debate-protocol 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 10d 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Adversarial Debate Protocol
A formal three-role debate structure ensuring decisions survive rigorous adversarial challenge. The protocol assigns distinct roles (advocate, critic, judge) to prevent confirmation bias and ensure intellectual honesty.
Stages
- Advocate Construction — Build the strongest possible case for the position under debate
- Critic Attack — Attack the advocate's case from multiple angles with severity ratings
- Judge Verdict — Impartial assessment of advocate case vs critic attacks, rendering ACCEPT/REJECT/REVISE
- Iteration (if REVISE) — Advocate revises case, critic re-attacks, judge re-evaluates
Available SOPs
| SOP | Role | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| advocate-construction | Advocate | Build strongest case for position |
| critic-attack | Critic | Attack the case with rated arguments |
| judge-verdict | Judge | Render impartial verdict |
Execution Guidance
- Minimum 2 rounds before accepting ACCEPT verdict
- Critic must produce >= 3 distinct attack arguments per round
- Judge must address every critic argument explicitly
- If judge verdict is REVISE, advocate must address specific weaknesses identified
- Maximum 4 rounds before escalating to strategy level
Minimum Yield
- Advocate case with explicit evidence and reasoning
- Critic attacks with severity ratings (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
- Judge verdict (ACCEPT/REJECT/REVISE) with point-by-point reasoning
- Conditions for acceptance (if ACCEPT)
- Required modifications (if REVISE)
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| advocate-construction | Construct the strongest possible case for a rejected candidate or counter-position. |
| critic-attack | Attack an advocate's case with multiple arguments rated by severity. |
| judge-verdict | Render an impartial verdict on advocate case vs critic attacks with explicit reasoning. |
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 61 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 23dc71535a7e
adversarial-debate-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine (449 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 500 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
Deep Research
Produce a deep, structured research report on a topic: decompose into key dimensions, analyze each with evidence and reasoning, synthesize cross-cutting insights, and surface open questions. Use for deep research, analysis, and literature/landscape reviews.
literature-review-tools
Recommend AND run open-source AI tools, agents, Claude Code / Codex skills, and MCP servers for any stage of a literature review — searching, reading, extracting, synthesizing, screening, citation-checking, and paper writing. Use when the user asks "what tool should I use to..." OR "install/run/use to ..." for…
papers-reading-skill
Evidence-grounded AI research workflow for turning supplied economics, finance, management, and social-science papers or structured records into versioned PaperReading artifacts. Use when Codex must ingest text, Markdown, or a text-based PDF; separate source-grounded claims from researcher analysis; bind findings to…
paper-fulltext-harvest
Batch download academic paper full-text (PDF/XML) from a list of DOIs. Handles 25 DOI prefixes across 19 publisher families via three layered routes: (1) publisher TDM APIs requiring institutional subscription (Elsevier ScienceDirect, Wiley Online, Springer Nature), (2) Open Access sources (Crossref, Unpaywall…
academic-figure-generation
Generates publication-quality academic figures (framework diagrams, pipeline illustrations, system architectures, method overviews) from a paper's method text and a target caption, using a local PaperBanana multi-agent pipeline (Retriever → Planner → Stylist → Visualizer → Critic).
paper-reading
Reads and analyzes academic papers (arXiv preprints, conference / journal PDFs, Zotero items) at three configurable depths: quick skim (2 min), standard read (10 min), or deep analysis (30 min). Produces structured digests covering problem, method, key innovation, results, limitations, reproducibility, hidden…