Metadata-Version: 2.4
Name: debate
Version: 0.4.0
Summary: Two AI agents review each other's work through two shared text files — enforced turns, a full audit trail, a human always in charge. Zero dependencies.
Author: Zoltan Soos
License: MIT
Project-URL: Homepage, https://github.com/zolcal/debate
Project-URL: Issues, https://github.com/zolcal/debate/issues
Project-URL: Case study, https://github.com/zolcal/debate/blob/main/docs/case-study.md
Keywords: ai-agents,multi-agent,code-review,governance,llm
Classifier: Development Status :: 3 - Alpha
Classifier: Intended Audience :: Developers
Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License
Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3
Classifier: Topic :: Software Development :: Quality Assurance
Requires-Python: >=3.10
Description-Content-Type: text/markdown
License-File: LICENSE
Provides-Extra: dev
Requires-Dist: pytest>=8.0.0; extra == "dev"
Requires-Dist: ruff<0.8,>=0.7; extra == "dev"
Requires-Dist: mypy>=1.10.0; extra == "dev"
Dynamic: license-file

<p align="center">
  <img alt="Two robot figures at opposing parliamentary dispatch boxes, one handing the other a document, with an open ledger recording the exchange between them and a robed human observer watching from a balcony above." src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zolcal/debate/main/docs/assets/banner.png" width="920">
</p>

# debate

<p align="center">
  <a href="https://pypi.org/project/debate/"><img alt="PyPI" src="https://img.shields.io/pypi/v/debate"></a>
  <img alt="Python 3.10+" src="https://img.shields.io/pypi/pyversions/debate">
  <img alt="Zero dependencies" src="https://img.shields.io/badge/dependencies-zero-brightgreen">
  <img alt="License: MIT" src="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-blue">
</p>

**One AI agent writes the code. A second agent — from a different company, in a different
app — checks it. They talk by taking turns in two text files, and you can read every word.**

Zero dependencies. Two files. One rule: nobody posts out of turn.

## What is this?

You have Claude Code in one terminal. You have a second AI agent somewhere else — a
different vendor, a different tool, maybe a different machine. You'd like one of them to
*write* code and the other to *review* it, the way two developers review each other's pull
requests. The bet this tool is built on is that an AI reviewer from the same vendor shares
too much of the builder's training to be a real second opinion — that a second opinion is
only a second opinion if it comes from somewhere else. That is a hypothesis, not a measured
result. It is being tested in a pre-registered study, which is underway and has no results
yet; when it has, this README will report them either way.

Problem: those two agents can't talk to each other. There is no shared API between vendors,
and the AI subscriptions you already pay for only work inside each vendor's own app. So in
practice *you* become the messenger, copy-pasting between two windows.

`debate` fixes this with the simplest thing that could work: **a shared mailbox made of two
text files** in a folder both agents can reach (a git repo is perfect — the history becomes
your audit trail).

- **`<channel>.channel.md`** is the conversation. Messages are only ever *added*, never
  edited or deleted, so it doubles as a complete record of who said what, when.
- **`<channel>.signal.json`** is the doorbell: five small fields that say whose turn it
  is and which discussion is open.

`<channel>` is the channel's own name — `debate init` generates it once, as
`<label>-<NNNNN>` (the label defaults to your repo's directory name; five random digits
make two channels unable to collide). Because every file carries the name, several
channels can share one folder, and a message can never land in the wrong project's
record. (`init` also drops `<channel>.debate.json` next to them — party names, settings,
and the project the channel serves. That one is configuration, not conversation; the
mailbox is the two files above. Channels created by 0.3.x use the older fixed filenames
`CHANNEL.md`/`signal.json`/`debate.json` — still fully supported; see `debate migrate`.)

<p align="center">
  <picture>
    <source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zolcal/debate/main/docs/assets/flow-dark.svg">
    <img alt="The channel is two files in a shared directory: an append-only record that acts as the hansard, and a doorbell holding sequence number, whose turn it is, and which thread is open. A builder agent and a reviewer agent — deliberately from different vendors — each post and read through one writer that enforces turns, one open thread at a time, and message caps. A dumb cron watcher polls the doorbell every few minutes, prints new entries, and wakes whichever agent's turn it is with a pinned, debounced prompt. The human supervisor sees every entry and owns the merges, never acting as courier." src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zolcal/debate/main/docs/assets/flow-light.svg" width="820">
  </picture>
</p>

One command-line tool, `debate post`, is the only thing that writes to either file — and it
*enforces* the rules instead of politely asking: you can't post out of turn, you can't open
a second discussion while one is open, and a runaway back-and-forth gets cut off by a
message cap. A small scheduled job wakes whichever agent the doorbell points at. No server,
no message broker, no API keys, no framework to adopt.

## What a review looks like

After one round trip, the mailbox reads like this:

```markdown
## MSG-12 | 2026-07-06T14:02:11+00:00 | from: claude | type: review-request | thread: retry-backoff | refs: retry-backoff@4e9f21c

Please review branch retry-backoff at 4e9f21c: adds exponential backoff to the
HTTP client. 14 new tests. The part I'm least sure about is the jitter range.

## MSG-13 | 2026-07-06T14:07:48+00:00 | from: glm | type: verdict | thread: retry-backoff | refs: retry-backoff@4e9f21c

APPROVE — checked out 4e9f21c and ran the suite myself: 87 passed. Verified the
backoff caps at 60s and jitter cannot go negative. Non-blocking nit: the retry
log line prints the attempt number twice.

## MSG-14 | 2026-07-06T14:11:02+00:00 | from: claude | type: close | thread: retry-backoff | refs: retry-backoff@4e9f21c

Nit fixed in 5a01d33, merged. Closing.
```

Every message has a sequence number, a sender, a type (`review-request`, `verdict`,
`fix-report`, `question`, `info`, `close`), a thread name, and `refs` — the exact
branch-and-commit it talks about, so claims are checkable. Note the reviewer *re-ran the
tests itself* and said so. That culture is configured in the prompts; the format that makes
it auditable is enforced by the tool.

## Try it

> **Note on versions.** The released package on PyPI is `0.3.1`. `main` is ahead of it, and
> three commands documented below — `debate migrate`, `debate verify` and
> `debate watch-status` — exist only on `main` until the next release. Install from source
> if you want them.

```bash
pip install debate        # Python 3.10+, stdlib only — or just vendor the two modules

# Create the mailbox: two agents named claude and glm, plus you as supervisor.
# Prints the generated channel id, e.g. 'myproject-48213' (--label overrides the prefix).
debate init --root ./collab --parties claude,glm --supervisor owner

# The builder asks for a review:
debate post --root ./collab --from claude --type review-request \
    --thread feature-x --refs feature-x@abc123 \
    --body "Please review commit abc123: ..."

# The reviewer answers (its own tool/app runs this after reading the thread):
debate post --root ./collab --from glm --type verdict \
    --thread feature-x --refs feature-x@abc123 \
    --body "APPROVE — verified: 27 tests pass at abc123."

# Whoever acted last closes the thread:
debate post --root ./collab --from claude --type close \
    --thread feature-x --body "Merged. Closing."
```

Try posting twice in a row from the same party: the tool refuses. That refusal is the
protocol.

## Running it unattended

`debate watch-once` is one tick of a deliberately simple watcher. Put it on a schedule
(cron, every few minutes): it checks the doorbell, prints any new messages to stdout —
route that wherever you already look, a log file or a chat gateway — and, if it's an
agent's turn on an open thread, starts that agent with a fixed, pre-written prompt from a
config file:

```json
{
  "state_path": "/somewhere/outside/the/channel/watcher-state-myproject.json",
  "commands": { "claude": ["claude", "-p", "{prompt}"] },
  "prompts":  { "claude": "It is your turn on the review channel at ./collab. Read the open thread, act, post via debate, then stop." },
  "debounce_seconds": { "claude": 600 },
  "retry_seconds": 1800
}
```

**Name the state file after the channel, not `watcher-state.json`.** One channel gets one
state file, and its *stem* is the channel's identity everywhere else: the watcher tags every
log line with it, and the scheduler unit should be named after it too
(`debate-watch-<stem>`). Since 0.4 the stem to use is the channel's own generated id — that
is the first of the two edits `debate migrate` prints, and it makes units, state files,
locks and journals all carry one identity. Two channels on one host that both take the
generic default end up
with colliding tags and colliding unit names, and telling their watchers apart goes back to
reading `/proc` by hand — which is how a wrong-process kill happened here once.

```bash
debate watch-once --root ./collab --config watcher.json   # cron this every ~3 minutes
```

Agents run in the watcher's own working directory — `cd` to your project root before
`watch-once` (as above), and under systemd or Task Scheduler set `WorkingDirectory` /
"Start in" explicitly, or relative paths in your pinned prompts will resolve somewhere
surprising.

When nothing changed, nothing runs — no model is invoked, no tokens are spent. A party with
no `commands` entry is never started automatically; that's how a human-driven side works
(the watcher waits `debounce_seconds` first, so a live session gets the chance to answer
before the machinery steps in).

### Running to completion

Cron is for unattended operation. At the keyboard and just want the current review driven
to its close? Run the same watcher in the foreground:

```bash
debate watch --root ./collab --config watcher.json --until-close
```

Same config, same safety rails — agents launch with stdin detached and a timeout
(`timeout_seconds`, default 1800), a crashed or hung agent is reported and retried once,
a stuck thread exits loudly (code 4) instead of spinning, and a kernel-enforced lock
beside the watcher state file keeps a foreground `watch` and a cron `watch-once` from
double-driving the same channel. `debate status --stale-after 3600` exits 3 when a turn
has been parked longer than an hour — put it wherever you already alert from.

> **One driver per channel: the scheduler OR a foreground `watch`, never both.** `watch`
> holds that lock for its whole process lifetime, so while it runs, every scheduler tick is
> refused with **exit 1** — and unless something reads exit codes, the channel just quietly
> stops being driven. Stop the scheduler while you drive a round by hand, or don't run
> `watch` at all. This is a real failure mode, not a hypothetical: a silent channel is
> indistinguishable from a quiet one until someone looks.

### Is anything actually driving this channel?

```bash
debate watch-status --root ./collab --config watcher.json
```

Reports whether a watcher holds the lock — naming the holder's pid and working directory —
when the channel was last ticked, and what it is waiting for. Exits **4** when a human
should look. Run it *before* killing any `debate` process: `ps` cannot tell two channels'
watchers apart, and killing the wrong one is a mistake that has been made here.

## Housekeeping: the mailbox grows, agents shouldn't read all of it

The conversation file grows forever by design. Real numbers from the production channel
this tool came from: **63 messages, 112 KB, in four days** — an agent that naively reads
the whole mailbox burns a quarter of its context window on history it doesn't need. Three
commands keep that honest:

- **`debate read`** prints the open thread — an agent's working set is the open thread,
  never the whole file. `--thread <slug>` prints one thread (archives are searched too);
  `--since <seq>` prints only what's new. Put `debate read` in your agents' pinned prompts
  instead of "read the mailbox".
- **`debate compact`** is supervisor housekeeping, run occasionally: closed threads older
  than `--keep-days` (default 14) relocate **verbatim** to
  `archive/<channel>-YYYY-MM.md`, with a one-line index per thread in
  `archive/<channel>-INDEX.md`. Nothing is edited or deleted — the record moves house,
  and if your channel lives in a git repo, history keeps every byte anyway. `--dry-run`
  shows the plan first.
- **`debate post --verify-refs <repo>`** refuses a post whose `name@sha` citations don't
  resolve to real commits in that repo. This exists because of a real incident: a close
  message once cited a commit hash that was written down *before the commit existed* —
  wrong by construction, correction entry required. Machines are better at this check
  than authors are.
- **`debate verify`** reads the record back and reports whether it still agrees with itself:
  a repeated message number, or a mailbox holding entries the doorbell never rang for.
  Exits 0 when clean and 4 when something needs a human. A gap in the numbering is reported
  as information, not a fault — compaction relocates whole threads, so gaps are normal.

## One channel carries one project

A channel records, at `init`, the absolute path of the repo it serves. From then on a
post whose `refs` cite a commit (`name@sha`) that doesn't exist in *that* repo is
refused, with the message naming both sides. This too exists because of a real incident:
another project's code review was once conducted through this repo's channel — every
turn-order rule passed, because no rule *could* object — and the interleaved record
became unpublishable. The supervisor can `--force` a deliberate exception; channels
created before 0.4 carry no binding and are not gated.

If a folder somehow ends up holding more than one channel, every command refuses and
lists them; `--channel <id>` picks one. Guessing between channels is how a message lands
in the wrong project's record, so nothing guesses.

**Upgrading from 0.3.x:** existing channels keep working unchanged. `debate migrate
--root <folder>` renames one in place to the named layout — a pure rename, the record's
bytes untouched (`debate verify` before and after proves it) — then prints the two edits
you owe: the watcher's `state_path` stem and the scheduler unit name, which both take
the channel's id. Writing new legacy-layout channels is no longer possible; posting to
existing ones remains supported in 0.4 and becomes a documented deprecation in 0.5.

## What's enforced — and what isn't

Be precise about what this tool guarantees, especially before running agents unattended:

- **Enforced, hard:** turn order, one open thread at a time, reply types (`verdict`,
  `fix-report`) cannot open threads, message caps, the message format, and write ordering
  (the mailbox entry always lands before the doorbell rings, so a watcher can never read a
  half-written message). An agent that breaks these rules gets its post *refused*, not a
  warning.
- **Advisory, soft:** everything an agent does *outside* the mailbox. "Don't push to main",
  "don't touch the config" — if those live in a prompt, you are trusting the model to
  comply. The tool can force *when* an agent speaks. It cannot force what the agent says to
  be true.

That second bullet is not theoretical. The one time our unattended fallback fired in
production, the agent did everything right — and also repeated a stale fact from the
channel history as if it were current, because it never re-checked the repo. The fix is
cultural and cheap: require verdicts to cite fresh evidence (commit hash + test count),
keep merges in human hands, and give unattended sessions their own working copy. The full
story is in the [case study](docs/case-study.md).

## Rules we learned the hard way

Each of these is encoded in the tool or the shipped watcher, and each one was paid for:

1. **Check for an open thread, not just the turn field** — after a close, the turn field
   means nothing.
2. **Invoke once per doorbell change** — an agent that produced no reply gets one timed
   retry, then the human is pinged. Two agents in a refusal loop would burn money forever;
   the cap is the brake.
3. **Wait before waking an agent** — a human may be mid-reply; the fallback should behave
   like a fallback.
4. **The watcher's memory lives outside the shared folder** — its state file is not part of
   the record and never collides with a fresh clone.
5. **The supervisor can speak at any time without taking a turn** — the human interjecting
   never breaks the agents' alternation.
6. **The mailbox is the record** — if it didn't happen in the channel file, it didn't
   happen. Corrections are new messages, never edits.

## Why not just…

- **GitHub PRs and a review bot?** Great if both agents live where your repos are hosted.
  `debate` needs no hosting service, works completely offline, and round-trips in seconds
  on a cron tick — no webhooks, no tokens. (If GitHub fits your setup, use GitHub.)
- **A multi-agent framework (AutoGen, LangGraph, CrewAI)?** Those orchestrate agents they
  own, inside one program. `debate` coordinates agents that *nobody* jointly owns —
  different vendors, different apps, different lifetimes — and leaves a human-readable
  paper trail as the primary artifact.
- **A message queue?** You'd be trading two greppable text files and `git log` for a broker
  you have to run. The paper trail *is* the point.

## Limits, honestly

- **Two parties by design.** A review needs a builder and a reviewer; strict alternation
  between exactly two named agents (plus a supervisor who can always interject) is the
  feature. Getting N agents to agree is a different protocol.
- **Polling, not push.** The doorbell is made to be checked every few minutes by cron. If
  you need sub-second latency, this is not your transport.
- **The writer lock is advisory.** `post` and `compact` serialize on a transient
  per-channel lock file (a crashed holder's lock is broken after 30 seconds), so two
  simultaneous posts cannot interleave — the second sees the first's thread open and is
  refused. But it only binds writers that go through the CLI. (`compact`'s crash ordering
  can duplicate an entry across mailbox and archive; it can never lose one.)
- **The record is tamper-evident, not tamper-proof.** `post` refuses a message whose body or
  `refs` would forge an entry header — that is a real hazard, because quoting an earlier
  message is exactly how it happens by accident, not by malice. `debate verify` catches
  careless or automated tampering after the fact. But the mailbox is a plain text file:
  anyone who can write to it, and who uses the next message number correctly, produces a
  record that verifies clean. Detecting *that* needs per-entry signatures, which this tool
  does not have. Treat the record as an honest log among cooperating parties plus a guard
  against accidents — not as evidence against a determined forger with write access.
- **Young.** Extracted from a working production setup, generalized, and tested — but
  read the code before trusting it; it's about 2,300 lines including the CLI, with 320
  tests as of this writing.

## Where this comes from

This is the setup `debate` was extracted from — provenance, not prescription.
This is not a design exercise — it's the generalization of a channel that ran real
code-review cycles between two commercial AI ecosystems:

- **The builder seat: Claude Code**, Anthropic's terminal coding agent, running **Fable 5**
  (their strongest model tier), on a flat-rate subscription.
- **The reviewer seat: a GPT-5.5 agent on [Hermes](https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent)**,
  Nous Research's open-source agent harness, authenticated through an OpenAI Codex
  subscription. Hermes matters here: it is not a chat window but a full agentic
  environment with its own scheduler, its own subagents, and a Telegram gateway — its cron
  ran the watcher, and every channel message was mirrored to the supervisor's phone by the
  same infrastructure.

No API key existed anywhere in the system. Two subscriptions, each valid only inside its
own app, collaborating through two files in a repo. A typical review round-tripped in about
five minutes, most of which was the reviewer independently re-running the test suite.

One way to read that setup: **an orchestrator conducting another orchestrator.** The
top-tier model doesn't just answer reviews — it writes the specs and test contracts, and
the Hermes-side agent executes them inside its own 24/7 infrastructure, then the roles
flip for review. In the best run of that shape, the stronger model authored a
spec-and-tests contract, the Hermes agent implemented it, and the result — one round trip,
about ten minutes — was a 137× speedup on the function under contract. That figure is one
anecdote from one function, measured on that project's own workload; it is offered as a
description of the shape, not as a benchmark of anything. `debate` is the baton between the
two conductors, and the score everyone can read afterwards.

The same shape fits whatever pair of ecosystems you already run. The origin above is one
example, not the design — and the pairing has rotated since: **this repo's own channel now
runs Claude Opus 5 (builder) ↔ GLM (reviewer)**, and its live record is committed under
[`collab/`](collab/). What is there is the review trail of this project's own 0.4 work: a
plan reviewed against the source before a line of it was executed, then four code branches
gated one at a time, each verdict citing the reviewer's own checkout and its own test run.
It is the protocol used in anger on the repo you are reading.

A GLM + Kimi pairing works the same way anywhere (see
[`examples/glm-kimi.md`](examples/glm-kimi.md) — both seats verified live), and a local
open-weight model can hold either seat, beholden to no vendor. If it can read files and run
a shell command, it can hold up its end of a review.

## The name

Parliamentary, not adversarial: strict turns, one motion on the floor at a time, and
everything said is on the record. (If you arrived from the "AI safety via debate"
literature: this is not the formal debate game — it's review correspondence with teeth.)

## License

MIT
