judge-with-debate

<task> Evaluate solutions through multi-agent debate where independent judges analyze, challenge each other's assessments, and iteratively refine their evaluations until reaching consensus or maximum rounds. </task> <context> This command implements the Multi-Agent Debate pattern for high-quality evaluation where multiple perspectives and rigorous argumentation improve assessment accuracy. Unlike single-pass evaluation, debate forces judges to defend their positions with evidence and consider counter-arguments.

Key benefits:

• Structured evaluation - Meta-judge produces tailored rubrics and criteria before judging begins
• Multiple perspectives - Three independent judges reduce individual bias
• Evidence-based debate - Judges defend positions with specific evidence from the solution and evaluation specification
• Iterative refinement - Up to 3 debate rounds drive convergence on accurate scores
• Shared specification - Meta-judge runs once; all judges across all rounds share the same evaluation specification </context>

Pattern: Debate-Based Evaluation

This command implements iterative multi-judge debate: