AgentSkillsCN

dialectic

借助平行代理对某一论断进行正反论证，以消除确认偏见。适用于当有人提出“辩证法”、“证明/反驳”、“对这一说法进行压力测试”、“这真的成立吗？”、“从正反两方面展开辩论”，或当某项论断亟需来自对立视角的客观分析时使用。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: dialectic
description: Prove and counter-prove a statement using parallel agents to eliminate confirmation bias. Use when someone says "dialectic", "prove/disprove", "stress test this claim", "is this really true", "argue both sides", or when a statement needs objective analysis from opposing viewpoints.
argument-hint: '<statement to analyze>'
allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, Task, AskUserQuestion

Dialectic Analysis

Objective analysis of a statement by running two agents with opposing goals in parallel, then synthesizing findings.

Process

Step 1: Launch Parallel Agents

CRITICAL: Both Task tool calls MUST be in a single message for true parallel execution. Do NOT use run_in_background. Do NOT launch sequentially. Foreground agents in the same message run in parallel and block until both complete.

Agent 1 (Thesis) — find all POSITIVE evidence:

  • •what works well, improvements, correct patterns
  • •supporting facts, proof the statement is TRUE
  • •benefits, strengths, successful outcomes

Agent 2 (Antithesis) — find all NEGATIVE evidence:

  • •what's problematic, issues, risks, anti-patterns
  • •edge cases, proof the statement is FALSE
  • •weaknesses, failure modes, hidden costs

Both agents must provide specific file paths and line numbers when analyzing code.

Step 2: Synthesize

After both agents complete, synthesize findings into an objective conclusion:

  • •weigh evidence from both sides
  • •identify where thesis and antithesis agree (strongest signal)
  • •note unresolved tensions

Step 3: Verify

CRITICAL — after presenting the synthesis, verify it against actual implementation:

  • •read the specific files and line numbers referenced by both agents
  • •confirm the evidence cited actually exists in the codebase
  • •check the implementation flow matches the claims made
  • •verify the synthesis accurately reflects the actual code context
  • •identify any misinterpretations or missing context from agent reports
  • •revise synthesis if verification reveals inaccuracies

Use Cases

Architecture decisions:

code
/thinking-tools:dialectic this microservice split improves maintainability

Bug analysis:

code
/thinking-tools:dialectic the connection pool fixes the timeout issue

Performance claims:

code
/thinking-tools:dialectic caching reduced database load by 80%

Refactoring safety:

code
/thinking-tools:dialectic extracting this interface simplifies testing

Code review:

code
/thinking-tools:dialectic this implementation is thread-safe

Review changes:

code
/thinking-tools:dialectic review the changes in server.go

Key Principles

  • •Eliminate confirmation bias — examining both sides simultaneously prevents anchoring on the first conclusion
  • •Evidence-based — agents must cite specific files, lines, and facts, not general claims
  • •Verification required — synthesis must be checked against actual code before presenting
  • •Objective conclusion — the goal is truth, not winning either side