Skip to content

/stress-test - Multi-Persona Adversarial Debate
Runtime ~10-15 minutes
Reads Target document, theme context, stakeholder profiles
Writes Debate synthesis to stdout
Model Opus (3 parallel subagents + synthesis)

What It Does

Three personas independently evaluate a document, then the synthesis focuses on where they disagree. The clashes surface hidden assumptions that no single reviewer catches.

How It's Different from /challenge

/challenge /stress-test
5 structured critique lenses 3 distinct people with different priors
Checklist-style analysis Perspective diversity
Catches known blind spots Discovers unknown ones
Quick pre-send QA (~5 min) Important documents, multiple stakeholders (~15 min)
You know what might be wrong You don't know what you don't know

Both are valid. Run /challenge first for the quick structural check, then /stress-test on anything going to a board or investment committee.

How It Works

graph TD
    A[Target Document] --> B[Determine Context<br/><small>audience, stakes,<br/>strategic position</small>]
    B --> C[Select Personas<br/><small>auto-detect or<br/>user-specified</small>]
    C --> D1[Persona 1<br/><small>independent<br/>cold read</small>]
    C --> D2[Persona 2<br/><small>independent<br/>cold read</small>]
    C --> D3[Persona 3<br/><small>independent<br/>cold read</small>]
    D1 --> E[Synthesis<br/><small>agreements, clashes,<br/>resolution</small>]
    D2 --> E
    D3 --> E

    style A fill:#161b22,stroke:#5eead4,color:#e6edf3
    style B fill:#161b22,stroke:#5eead4,color:#e6edf3
    style C fill:#161b22,stroke:#5eead4,color:#e6edf3
    style D1 fill:#161b22,stroke:#5eead4,color:#e6edf3
    style D2 fill:#161b22,stroke:#5eead4,color:#e6edf3
    style D3 fill:#161b22,stroke:#5eead4,color:#e6edf3
    style E fill:#161b22,stroke:#5eead4,color:#e6edf3

Input

Four modes:

  • /stress-test path/to/file.md - Auto-detect personas from content
  • /stress-test file.md "Sceptical IC Member, Portfolio CEO, Operating Partner" - Specify personas
  • /stress-test (no args) - Stress-test whatever you've been working on
  • /stress-test debate - Extended mode: personas respond to each other's critiques

Persona Selection

If you don't specify personas, the system auto-detects based on content:

Content Type Persona Set
Board memo, IC paper Sceptical committee member, Portfolio CEO who's seen this pitch, Operations-focused partner
Email to senior stakeholder The recipient (modelled on their concerns), A competing thesis advocate, Someone burned by similar claims
Client proposal The budget holder, The internal champion selling it up, The incumbent vendor's defender
Strategic plan Day-1 employee reading this, The board member who funded it, The sceptic who voted against
Technical architecture The CTO building it, The CFO funding it, The user living with it
LinkedIn post A sharp-tongued peer, Someone who's never heard of you, A potential client

Each persona gets a name, role, and stated prior/bias. At least one must be adversarial.

The Synthesis (Where the Value Lives)

The individual assessments matter less than the synthesis. The output focuses on:

Where they agree - issues all three flagged. These are definite problems.

Where they clash - the main section, 2-3x longer than agreements. Each clash includes:

  • What each persona thinks and why
  • What the disagreement reveals (the hidden assumption or trade-off)
  • How to resolve it

Three questions - one from each persona that the document doesn't answer.

Extended Debate Mode

With the debate flag, personas see each other's assessments and respond. This second round reveals:

  • Which positions shifted (genuine persuasion happened)
  • Which positions hardened (these are the real fault lines)
  • New issues that emerge from the cross-pollination

Takes longer but surfaces deeper assumptions.

Design Principles

  • Fresh agents are non-negotiable. The value comes from cold evaluation without session context bias. Never simulate personas in the main conversation
  • Clashes over agreements. Agreements confirm known issues. Disagreements reveal unknown ones
  • Don't manufacture disagreement. If all three agree, say so. Forced debate is worse than genuine consensus
  • Match stakes to effort. A quick email gets terse assessments. A board paper gets the full treatment with debate mode

Where It Fits

/stress-test sits alongside /challenge in the quality assurance pipeline:

/draft -> /challenge (quick structural check) -> /stress-test (perspective diversity) -> ship
  • /challenge - Complementary: structured critique lenses vs persona diversity
  • /draft - Upstream: creates the content that gets stress-tested
  • /capture - If the stress-test surfaces a good framing, capture it
  • Skills System - How skills compose with each other