Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

dialectic

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.

406estrelas
Atualizado há 4 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗ Licença: MIT

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add umputun/cc-thingz

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/dialectic/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/dialectic)

Skills relacionadas

Ver todas de Desenvolvimento →

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de Desenvolvimento toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de Desenvolvimento. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

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:

/thinking-tools:dialectic this microservice split improves maintainability

Bug analysis:

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

Performance claims:

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

Refactoring safety:

/thinking-tools:dialectic extracting this interface simplifies testing

Code review:

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

Review changes:

/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
Compartilhar X LinkedIn