chain-roleplay-debate-synthesis

What this skill does

# Chain Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame the decision and identify roles
- [ ] Step 2: Roleplay each perspective authentically
- [ ] Step 3: Structured debate between viewpoints
- [ ] Step 4: Synthesize into coherent recommendation
- [ ] Step 5: Validate synthesis quality
```

**Step 1: Frame the decision and identify roles**

State the decision clearly as a question, identify 2-5 stakeholder perspectives or roles that have legitimate but competing interests, and clarify what a successful synthesis looks like. See [Decision Framing](#decision-framing) for guidance on choosing productive roles.

**Step 2: Roleplay each perspective authentically**

For each role, articulate their position, priorities, concerns, and evidence. Genuinely advocate for each viewpoint without strawmanning. See [Roleplay Guidelines](#roleplay-guidelines) for authentic advocacy techniques and use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for complete structure.

**Step 3: Structured debate between viewpoints**

Facilitate direct clash between perspectives on key points of disagreement. Surface tensions, challenge assumptions, test edge cases, and identify cruxes (what evidence would change each perspective's mind). See [Debate Structure](#debate-structure) for debate formats and facilitation techniques.

**Step 4: Synthesize into coherent recommendation**

Integrate insights from all perspectives into a unified decision that acknowledges tradeoffs, incorporates valid concerns from each viewpoint, and explains what's being prioritized and why. See [Synthesis Patterns](#synthesis-patterns) for integration approaches and [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for synthesis framework. For complex multi-stakeholder decisions, see [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md).

**Step 5: Validate synthesis quality**

Check synthesis against [resources/evaluators/rubric_chain_roleplay_debate_synthesis.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_chain_roleplay_debate_synthesis.json) to ensure all perspectives were represented authentically, debate surfaced real tensions, synthesis is coherent and actionable, and no perspective was dismissed without engagement. See [When NOT to Use This Skill](#when-not-to-use-this-skill) to confirm this approach was appropriate.

---

## Decision Framing

### Choosing Productive Roles

**Good role selection:**
- **Competing interests**: Roles have legitimate but different priorities (e.g., Speed Advocate vs. Quality Guardian)
- **Different expertise**: Roles bring distinct knowledge domains (e.g., Engineer, Designer, Customer)
- **Value tensions**: Roles represent incompatible values (e.g., Privacy Advocate vs. Personalization)
- **Stakeholder representation**: Roles map to real decision-makers or affected parties

**Typical role patterns:**
- **Functional roles**: Engineer, Designer, PM, Marketer, Finance, Legal, Customer
- **Archetype roles**: Optimist, Pessimist, Risk Manager, Visionary, Pragmatist
- **Stakeholder roles**: Customer, Employee, Investor, Community, Regulator
- **Value roles**: Ethics Officer, Growth Hacker, Brand Guardian, Innovation Lead
- **Temporal roles**: Short-term Thinker, Long-term Strategist

**How many roles:**
- **2 roles**: Clean binary debate (build vs. buy, growth vs. profitability)
- **3 roles**: Triadic tension (speed vs. quality vs. cost)
- **4-5 roles**: Multi-stakeholder complexity (product strategy with eng, design, marketing, finance, customer)
- **Avoid >5**: Becomes unwieldy, synthesis too complex

### Framing the Question

**Strong framing:**
- "Should we prioritize X over Y?" (clear tradeoff)
- "What's the right balance between A and B?" (explicit tension)
- "Should we pursue strategy X?" (specific, actionable)

**Weak framing:**
- "What should we do?" (too vague)
- "How can we have our cake and eat it too?" (assumes false resolution)
- "Who's right?" (assumes winner rather than synthesis)

---

## Roleplay Guidelines

### Authentic Advocacy

**Each role should:**
1. **State position clearly**: What do they believe should be done?
2. **Articulate priorities**: What values or goals drive this position?
3. **Surface concerns**: What risks or downsides do they see in other approaches?
4. **Provide evidence**: What data, experience, or reasoning supports this view?
5. **Show vulnerability**: What uncertainties or limitations does this role acknowledge?

**Avoiding strawmen:**
- ❌ "The engineer just wants to use shiny new tech" (caricature)
- ✅ "The engineer values maintainability and believes new framework reduces technical debt"

- ❌ "Sales only cares about closing deals" (dismissive)
- ✅ "Sales is accountable for revenue and sees this feature as critical for competitive positioning"

**Empathy without capitulation:**
You can deeply understand a perspective without agreeing with it. Each role should be the "hero of their own story."

### Perspective-Taking Checklist

For each role, answer:
- [ ] What success looks like from this perspective
- [ ] What failure looks like from this perspective
- [ ] What metrics or evidence this role finds most compelling
- [ ] What this role fears about alternative approaches
- [ ] What this role knows that others might not
- [ ] What constraints or pressures this role faces

---

## Debate Structure

### Facilitating Productive Clash

**Debate formats:**

**1. Point-Counterpoint**
- Role A makes case for their position
- Role B responds with objections and counterarguments
- Role A addresses objections
- Repeat with Role B's case

**2. Devil's Advocate**
- One role presents the "default" or "obvious" choice
- Other roles systematically challenge assumptions and surface risks
- Goal: Pressure-test before committing

**3. Constructive Confrontation**
- Identify 3-5 key decision dimensions (cost, speed, risk, quality, etc.)
- Each role articulates position on each dimension
- Surface where perspectives conflict most

**4. Crux-Finding**
- Ask each role: "What would need to be true for you to change your mind?"
- Identify testable assumptions or evidence that would shift debate
- Focus discussion on cruxes rather than rehashing positions

### Questions to Surface Tensions

- "What's the strongest argument against your position?"
- "What does [other role] see that you might be missing?"
- "Where is the irreducible tradeoff between your perspectives?"
- "If you had to steelman the opposing view, what would you say?"
- "What happens in edge cases for your approach?"
- "What are you optimizing for that others aren't?"

### Red Flags in Debate

- **Premature consensus**: Roles agree too quickly without surfacing real tensions
- **Talking past each other**: Roles argue different points rather than engaging
- **Appeal to authority**: "Because the CEO said so" rather than reasoning
- **False dichotomies**: "Either we do X or we fail" without exploring middle ground
- **Unsupported claims**: "Everyone knows Y" without evidence or reasoning

---

## Synthesis Patterns

### Integration Approaches

**1. Weighted Synthesis**
- "We'll prioritize X, while incorporating safeguards for Y's concerns"
- Example: "Ship fast (PM's priority), but with feature flags and monitoring (Engineer's concern)"

**2. Sequencing**
- "First we do X, then we address Y"
- Example: "Launch MVP to test market (Growth), then invest in quality (Engineering) once product-market fit is proven"

**3. Conditional Strategy**
- "If condition A, do X; if condition B, do Y"
- Example: "If adoption > 10K users in Q1, invest in scale; otherwise, pivot based on feedback"

**4. Hybrid Approach**
- "Combine elements of multiple perspectives"
- Example: "Build core in-house (control) but buy peripheral components (speed)"

**5. Reframing**
- "Debate reveals the real question is Z, not X vs Y"
- Example: "Debate about pricing reveals we need to segment customers first"

**6. Elevating Constraint**
- "Iden