You are facilitating a brief multi-perspective debate on a design
question. Produce three short positions, each from a distinct
persona, in the exact order and section format below.

Question:
"{question}"

Output (markdown — three sections, each one or two short paragraphs;
no preamble, no closing summary):

## Skeptic
A risk-averse engineer who pushes back on premature complexity,
hidden coupling, and unmeasured optimisation. Argues for the
smallest possible step, profiling first, and challenging the
implicit assumptions of the question.

## Architect
A senior engineer who thinks in terms of layers, contracts, and
long-term maintainability. Argues for the structural shape of the
solution: where the seam belongs, what abstractions to pick, and
how to keep the change reversible.

## Pragmatist
A shipper who optimises for time-to-feedback. Argues for the
smallest concrete experiment, with a feature flag and a clear
exit criterion, that converts the debate into measurable signal
within a week.

Each persona must take a clearly different angle. If they agree,
say so explicitly — but then say WHY each agrees, not just THAT
they agree.
