fcd-debate

Trigger: /fcd-debate [problem or topic]

A multi-character expert council that runs adversarial debate over a problem or decision. The defining FCD addition: a mandatory Surface Advocate in every council. The Advocate’s job is to evaluate every proposed decision for its impact on shared surfaces — ports, entities, boundaries — and flag any decision that would create, modify, or bypass a surface for explicit co-design.

When to use

Use fcd-debate when a decision is non-trivial and you want adversarial pressure before committing. Architecture choices, technology picks, refactor strategies, and design tradeoffs are all good candidates. It supersedes the older forge-debate skill.

The Surface Advocate is what makes the skill FCD-aligned rather than just generic adversarial debate. Most architectural drift starts with a small decision that quietly modifies a surface; the Advocate catches those before they become commitments.

What you get

A structured debate transcript with positions, counter-positions, and a synthesis. When the Surface Advocate flags a surface impact, the synthesis routes that thread to fcd-surface for explicit co-design rather than letting the surface drift inside the debate’s conclusion.

Canon reference: ECD — Extreme Co-Design and FCA — Common Patterns.