▸case-10 We need to structure a debate on a proposed approach for zero-trust network access in cloud infrastructure. Should you analyze the artifact directly in this main chat context to give us quick arguments, or spawn a subagent to design the debate parameters in an isolated context? | fail→pass | 8,802 | 5,052 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,297 | 1,200 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-01 I have a research hypothesis claiming that a new microRNA biomarker panel can detect early-stage pancreatic cancer with 94% specificity. We plan to run a 'critic-defender-judge' style debate with a medium budget size. Please generate the full debate architecture for this claim, including prioritized attack vectors, assigned perspective roles, an escalation ladder breakdown, and round configuration details such as total rounds, participant counts, and stopping rules. | fail→fail | 31,731 | 29,745 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,283 | 2,716 | -49% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-02 We are evaluating a novel system approach for distributed database consensus under high network partition latency. We want to execute a 'society-of-mind' debate framework using a large budget allotment. Could you construct the execution plan? I need the ordered probe angles, perspective assignments across participants, escalation level definitions, and specific round configs detailing round counts, per-round agent allocations, and exit thresholds. | fail→fail | 35,130 | 15,963 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,638 | 2,892 | -49% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-03 I need to prepare a formal debate around an experimental design that tests quantum key distribution in satellite-to-ground links. The strategy selected is 'dialectic-proponent-opponent' with a small budget. Please outline the debate parameters for us: provide the list of weak points to attack, assigned viewpoints for participants, escalation stage definitions, and the complete round settings including number of rounds, agent limits per stage, and termination criteria. | fail→fail | 18,097 | 12,080 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,765 | 2,294 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-04 We have identified a research gap: current transformer architectures lack long-term episodic memory mechanisms for multi-day conversational AI. We want to set up a debate using a 'critic-defender-judge' framework with a Small (S) budget size. Rather than jumping into arguments yourself, set up the debate configuration and delegate the structural design via subagent. | fail→pass | 7,590 | 8,113 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,219 | 973 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-05 Our team has an innovative idea: using liquid neural networks for real-time edge robotics control. We want to configure a 'society-of-mind' debate with a Large (L) budget size. Configure the debate parameters, including round count, per-round agent allocations, and termination thresholds, delegating this work to a subagent. | fail→fail | 15,000 | 19,886 | +33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,451 | 3,677 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-06 We are formulating a debate around the research question: 'Can zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting achieve parity with fine-tuned domain models in medical diagnosis?' We plan to use a multi-perspective rotation strategy. Please delegate the creation of assigned perspective roles and ordered attack vectors using the appropriate subagent tool. | fail→fail | 10,069 | 10,385 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 773 | 1,014 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-07 We want to critique a software engineering approach: adopting Event-Driven Architecture with Event Sourcing for a high-throughput banking system. We will use an escalation debate strategy. Please establish the debate architecture, defining the escalation ladder stages and round configs, using subagent execution. | fail→fail | 24,578 | 7,960 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,164 | 743 | -82% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-08 We are setting up a debate to challenge an experimental design testing cold fusion in palladium-deuterium electrolysis cells with calorimetry instrumentation. We need the debate parameters built using a Medium budget and a critic-defender-judge model. Delegate this design to an isolated subagent context. | fail→fail | 36,520 | 8,070 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,456 | 776 | -68% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-09 Consider the claim: 'Commercial fusion power will be grid-connected before 2035.' We want to execute a perspective-rotation debate. Delegate the generation of assigned perspective roles and termination thresholds to a subagent. | fail→fail | 12,848 | 12,709 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,002 | 941 | -53% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-11 We are comparing two potential debate setups for a research claim regarding CRISPR gene editing off-target risks: Plan A uses budget size S and Plan B uses budget size L. Set up the round configuration for Plan A via subagent delegation. | fail→fail | 16,568 | 13,448 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,805 | 1,882 | -33% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-12 We have a hypothesis stating that topological quantum computing with Majorana zero modes will achieve sub-10-6 error rates without surface codes. Delegate the debate setup to a subagent and ensure it produces an ordered list of attack angles. | fail→fail | 15,433 | 4,170 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,438 | 1,012 | -58% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-13 For a debate regarding an idea to replace traditional SQL indexes with learned index structures, we need full round parameters for a medium budget. Please launch a subagent to construct the configuration, ensuring exit conditions are explicitly defined. | fail→fail | 14,880 | 15,731 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,403 | 1,029 | -57% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-14 We need a debate structure for an identified gap: the lack of standardized safety benchmarks for agentic AI tool usage. Spawn a subagent to output all required design components: attack vectors, perspectives, escalation ladder, and round configuration. | fail→fail | 15,505 | 19,317 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,300 | 2,194 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-15 Our research question asks whether solid-state lithium-metal batteries can maintain 80% capacity after 1,000 fast-charge cycles at 4C. We want a critic-defender-judge debate with budget size M. Delegate this task to a subagent. | fail→fail | 19,245 | 15,266 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,990 | 2,851 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-16 We want to design a debate around a novel approach for autonomous vehicle trajectory prediction using diffusion models. The debate will follow the 'society-of-mind' strategy with budget size L. Spawn a subagent to produce the structured plan. | fail→fail | 15,396 | 20,203 | +31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,394 | 3,441 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-17 Please design a debate for an experimental design validating room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductivity in nitrogen-doped lutetium hydride. We need per-round agent allocations for a 3-round debate. Delegate this to a subagent. | fail→fail | 15,456 | 11,110 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,671 | 959 | -64% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-18 We are preparing a rotation-based debate on the claim: 'Monolithic kernel architectures are inherently less secure than microkernels for mission-critical aerospace systems.' Launch a subagent to map out the perspective assignments for each round. | fail→fail | 13,684 | 8,795 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,318 | 718 | -69% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-19 For an approach involving automated program repair using large language models, we want an escalation-style debate with budget size S. Delegate the definition of level-by-level escalation stages to a subagent. | fail→fail | 17,329 | 15,619 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,072 | 2,803 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-20 Here is a completed transcript from a 3-round debate on whether dark matter is composed of primordial black holes versus WIMPs. As the debate judge, please analyze the points raised by both sides, evaluate the logical strength of each argument, and declare a winner with detailed scoring. | pass→fail | 23,197 | 7,505 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,577 | 1,521 | -57% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-21 I am participating in an active debate on whether zero-knowledge proofs are practical for real-time mobile payment verification. It is my turn to present a 2-minute rebuttal against the claim that proof generation latency is too high. Please write my rebuttal speech. | pass→pass | 12,220 | 10,896 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,931 | 1,788 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-22 We are currently running Round 2 of a debate on LLM post-training safety alignment using Direct Preference Optimization versus PPO. Critic Agent A just claimed that DPO suffers from distribution shift when applied iteratively. Please generate Defender Agent B's immediate live counter-argument. | pass→pass | 10,748 | 13,845 | +29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,708 | 2,429 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |