Built a structured adversarial debate layer for multi-agent decision systems, sharing architecture and open questions [P]

A practitioner has open-sourced a 5-agent adversarial debate architecture featuring bull, bear, devil's advocate, domain specialist, and rule-based sanity checker roles executing structured 2-round deliberation before decision execution. The judge synthesizes verdicts by scoring argument quality, exposing a critical flaw: rhetorical sophistication can override factual correctness. The proposed fix, forcing counter-agents to commit concrete counter-actions with explicit cost-of-being-wrong penalties, shifts evaluation from rhetoric to decision quality. Teams building agentic pipelines for high-stakes decisions should study this, particularly the unresolved groupthink-versus-sophisticated-consensus problem that plagues most multi-agent frameworks.