Multi-Viewpoint Debates
Spawn three isolated sub-agent personas with conflicting worldviews to debate any decision. Each persona brings a distinct decision-making framework that challenges the others' assumptions.
Quick Start
Run a debate:
CODEBLOCK0
Save the debate:
- 1. Collect responses from all three personas
- Create a new markdown file in your debates archive
- Use the template from INLINECODE0
- Update
INDEX.md with metadata
The Three Personas
Each persona brings a fundamentally different decision-making framework. They don't just have different opinions—they have different ways of thinking about problems.
Elon: Visionary & Impact-Focused
Thinks in terms of civilization-scale problems, first principles, and 10x improvements. Willing to take massive technical risks. Impatient with inefficiency and conventional wisdom. Asks: "Will this accelerate human progress?" and "Can we do 10x better, not 10%?"
When Elon is right: You need to challenge incremental thinking, identify the fundamental bottleneck, or assess whether you're solving a real problem at scale.
When Elon misleads: He overestimates what's possible in a given timeframe and underestimates market saturation and competition.
Capitalist: Profit & Efficiency-Focused
Thinks in terms of ROI, unit economics, competitive advantage, and market incentives. Ruthlessly efficient cost-benefit analysis. Sees everything through the lens of returns and opportunity cost. Asks: "What's the ROI?" and "Can I extract value faster than competitors?"
When Capitalist is right: You need hard numbers, competitive reality checks, and to understand whether something is actually a business.
When Capitalist misleads: They dismiss non-quantifiable value (meaning, learning, exploration) and underestimate network effects and long-term compounding.
Monkey: Immediate & Social-Focused
Thinks in simple patterns: immediate stimuli, social hierarchy, observable signals. Reacts to shiny things, follows the leader, skeptical of abstract future promises. Asks: "Does this help me now?" and "What are the smart monkeys doing?"
When Monkey is right: You need gut-level reality checks, honest signals of traction, and to understand whether you're actually excited about something.
When Monkey misleads: They dismiss long-term strategy and can't grasp complexity that requires abstraction.
Running a Debate
1. Define Your Decision Clearly
One sentence. Something you're actually deciding.
✅ "Should I continue working on Brain Dump or pivot?"
✅ "Should I hire a freelancer or build in-house?"
❌ "What should I do?" (too vague)
2. Spawn Each Persona
Use scripts/run-debate.sh for convenience, or spawn manually:
CODEBLOCK1
Each spawns in its own isolated session. Wait for all three to complete.
3. Collect Responses
Fetch from each session transcript (or copy directly from Clawdbot output).
4. Save to Archive
Use the assets/debate-template.md template. Include:
- - Metadata (date, topic, personas, context)
- Full response from each persona (actual quotes)
- Summary table of verdicts
- Key tensions between them
- Your decision (when made)
5. Update INDEX
Add one entry to your debates index with key metadata. This lets you search past decisions later.
The Power of Disagreement
The magic happens in the tension. When Elon says "move fast" and Capitalist says "the numbers don't work," that's where insight lives. The tension reveals what you actually value and what you're missing.
Usage pattern:
- 1. Sit with the disagreement (don't rush to one persona's view)
- Notice which view you're tempted to dismiss
- Ask: "What is that persona seeing that I'm not?"
- Make your decision informed by all three perspectives
- Write down why you're choosing one path over another
Archive Structure
Your debates live in a searchable archive:
CODEBLOCK2
Over time, your archive becomes a personal decision-making manual. You can search "Should I build vertical SaaS?" and see what you thought about similar decisions before.
Reference Materials
- -
references/elon.md – Elon's core traits, decision framework, tone, example responses references/capitalist.md – Capitalist's traits, framework, examplesreferences/monkey.md – Monkey's traits, framework, examplesreferences/how-to-debate.md – Detailed guidance on running effective debates
Scripts
- -
scripts/run-debate.sh – Helper script that generates spawn commands for all three personas based on your topic
Assets
- -
assets/debate-template.md – Template for new debate markdown files assets/index-template.md – Template entry for INDEX.md
Advanced: Pattern Analysis
As debates accumulate:
- 1. Identify which persona is usually right for your situation – You might notice Capitalist catches financial blind spots, Elon pushes you to be more ambitious
- Track decision outcomes – Come back 6 months later. Did the personas' predictions match reality?
- Refine persona definitions – Update the reference files if you notice gaps
- Build a personal playbook – "For market decisions, I should always listen to Capitalist first. For ambition checks, Elon. For reality, Monkey."
Tips
- - Keep decisions focused – Debates work best when you're deciding between 2-3 clear options
- Use actual context – Reference URLs, specific metrics, real user data (see Brain Dump example)
- Don't treat any single persona as gospel – The magic is in the tension, not in following one voice
- Update status as situations evolve – Mark debates as "Active," "Decided," "Monitoring," or "Shelved" as your thinking changes
- Share debates strategically – Your debate archive is personal; keep it private unless you want to share decision-making with collaborators
Example Debate
Topic: "Should I continue working on Brain Dump (AI voice-powered todo organizer)?"
Elon's take: "Possible if you hit PMF in 3-6 months with 10% daily active users and a killer vertical. Otherwise, pivot to something with a real moat."
Capitalist's take: "Kill it. Negative ROI. You're competing against Microsoft (free, bundled) and Todoist (5M users, $100M ARR). Your time is worth more elsewhere."
Monkey's take: "App works and looks nice, but I don't see other monkeys using it. Check your own energy level. Are you excited or bored?"
Result: All three agree the generic "voice-to-todo" is commoditized. The question is whether you can find a specific vertical where it dominates.
Extending the System
Create New Personas
Copy a reference file (e.g., references/elon.md) and create your own persona. Examples:
- - Skeptic – Questions everything, assumes failure
- Artist – Values beauty and creativity over efficiency
- Parent – Thinks about family impact and long-term consequences
- Lawyer – Sees risks and liabilities everywhere
- Scientist – Evidence-based, rigorous, skeptical of hype
Update your spawn scripts to include new personas as needed.
Integrate with Decision-Making Workflow
Run a debate before major decisions. Archive the results. Reference them when facing similar choices.
Share with Teams
Your debate archive can be shared with collaborators or decision-making partners. They can see your thinking and challenge your assumptions in context.
多视角辩论
生成三个具有冲突世界观的独立子代理角色,对任何决策进行辩论。每个角色都带来独特的决策框架,挑战其他角色的假设。
快速开始
运行一场辩论:
bash
clawdbot sessions_spawn --task 你是埃隆·马斯克[角色框架]。决策:[你的问题]。请像埃隆一样回应。
clawdbot sessions_spawn --task 你是一个资本家[角色框架]。决策:[你的问题]。请像一个冷酷的资本家一样回应。
clawdbot sessions_spawn --task 你是一只猴子[角色框架]。决策:[你的问题]。请像一只猴子一样回应。
保存辩论:
- 1. 收集所有三个角色的回应
- 在辩论存档中创建一个新的markdown文件
- 使用assets/debate-template.md中的模板
- 用元数据更新INDEX.md
三个角色
每个角色都带来根本不同的决策框架。他们不仅有不同的观点——他们有着不同的思考问题的方式。
埃隆:愿景与影响力导向
从文明级问题、第一性原理和10倍改进的角度思考。愿意承担巨大的技术风险。对低效率和传统智慧缺乏耐心。会问:这会加速人类进步吗?和我们能做得比10%更好,而是10倍更好吗?
当埃隆正确时:你需要挑战渐进式思维,识别根本瓶颈,或评估你是否在规模上解决真正的问题。
当埃隆误导时:他高估了在给定时间框架内可能实现的目标,低估了市场饱和度和竞争。
资本家:利润与效率导向
从投资回报率、单位经济学、竞争优势和市场激励的角度思考。进行冷酷高效的成本效益分析。通过回报和机会成本的视角看待一切。会问:投资回报率是多少?和我能比竞争对手更快地提取价值吗?
当资本家正确时:你需要硬数据、竞争现实检验,以及理解某件事是否真的是门生意。
当资本家误导时:他们忽视不可量化的价值(意义、学习、探索),低估网络效应和长期复利。
猴子:即时与社交导向
用简单的模式思考:即时刺激、社会等级、可观察的信号。对闪亮的东西做出反应,跟随领导者,对抽象的未来的承诺持怀疑态度。会问:这现在对我有帮助吗?和聪明的猴子们在做什么?
当猴子正确时:你需要直觉层面的现实检验、真实的吸引力信号,以及理解你是否真的对某件事感到兴奋。
当猴子误导时:他们忽视长期战略,无法理解需要抽象思维的复杂性。
运行辩论
1. 清晰定义你的决策
一句话。你实际正在决定的事情。
✅ 我应该继续开发Brain Dump还是转型?
✅ 我应该雇佣自由职业者还是内部开发?
❌ 我应该做什么?(太模糊)
2. 生成每个角色
使用scripts/run-debate.sh方便操作,或手动生成:
bash
clawdbot sessions_spawn --task 你是埃隆·马斯克,拥有这个性格框架:[从references/elon.md粘贴]。决策:[你的问题]。像埃隆一样回应——直接、第一性原理思考,不要手下留情。
每个角色在独立的会话中生成。等待所有三个完成。
3. 收集回应
从每个会话记录中获取(或直接从Clawdbot输出复制)。
4. 保存到存档
使用assets/debate-template.md模板。包括:
- - 元数据(日期、主题、角色、背景)
- 每个角色的完整回应(实际引用)
- 结论汇总表
- 它们之间的关键张力
- 你的决策(做出时)
5. 更新INDEX
用关键元数据在辩论索引中添加一条记录。这让你以后可以搜索过去的决策。
分歧的力量
魔力发生在张力中。当埃隆说快速行动而资本家说数字行不通时,洞察力就在那里。张力揭示了你真正重视什么以及你错过了什么。
使用模式:
- 1. 与分歧共处(不要急于接受某个角色的观点)
- 注意你倾向于忽视哪个观点
- 问:那个角色看到了什么而我没有看到?
- 在了解所有三个视角后做出决策
- 写下你为什么选择一条路而不是另一条
存档结构
你的辩论存在于一个可搜索的存档中:
debates/
├── INDEX.md (主索引,每次辩论后更新)
├── [辩论标题].md (单个辩论)
├── assets/
│ ├── debate-template.md (复制此文件用于新辩论)
│ └── index-template.md (INDEX.md的格式)
└── scripts/
└── run-debate.sh (生成所有三个角色的辅助脚本)
随着时间的推移,你的存档将成为个人决策手册。你可以搜索我应该构建垂直SaaS吗?并看到你之前对类似决策的想法。
参考资料
- - references/elon.md – 埃隆的核心特质、决策框架、语气、示例回应
- references/capitalist.md – 资本家的特质、框架、示例
- references/monkey.md – 猴子的特质、框架、示例
- references/how-to-debate.md – 关于进行有效辩论的详细指导
脚本
- - scripts/run-debate.sh – 基于你的主题为所有三个角色生成生成命令的辅助脚本
资产
- - assets/debate-template.md – 新辩论markdown文件的模板
- assets/index-template.md – INDEX.md的模板条目
进阶:模式分析
随着辩论的积累:
- 1. 识别在你的情况下哪个角色通常正确 – 你可能会注意到资本家抓住了财务盲点,埃隆推动你更有雄心
- 跟踪决策结果 – 6个月后回来。角色的预测与现实相符吗?
- 完善角色定义 – 如果发现差距,更新参考文件
- 建立个人行动手册 – 对于市场决策,我应该总是先听资本家的。对于雄心检查,听埃隆的。对于现实,听猴子的。
提示
- - 保持决策聚焦 – 当你在2-3个明确选项之间做决定时,辩论效果最好
- 使用实际背景 – 引用URL、具体指标、真实用户数据(参见Brain Dump示例)
- 不要将任何单一角色视为真理 – 魔力在于张力,而不是追随一个声音
- 随着情况变化更新状态 – 随着你的想法变化,将辩论标记为活跃、已决定、监控中或搁置
- 策略性地分享辩论 – 你的辩论存档是私人的;除非你想与协作者分享决策过程,否则保持私密
示例辩论
主题: 我应该继续开发Brain Dump(AI语音驱动的待办事项管理器)吗?
埃隆的看法: 如果你能在3-6个月内达到产品市场契合,拥有10%的日活跃用户和一个杀手级垂直领域,就有可能。否则,转向有真正护城河的东西。
资本家的看法: 放弃它。负投资回报率。你在与微软(免费、捆绑)和Todoist(500万用户、1亿美元年经常性收入)竞争。你的时间在其他地方更有价值。
猴子的看法: 应用运行良好且外观漂亮,但我没看到其他猴子在使用它。检查你自己的能量水平。你是兴奋还是无聊?
结果: 所有三个都同意通用的语音转待办事项已经商品化。问题在于你是否能找到一个它能主导的特定垂直领域。
扩展系统
创建新角色
复制一个参考文件(例如references/elon.md)并创建你自己的角色。示例:
- - 怀疑者 – 质疑一切,假设失败
- 艺术家 – 重视美和创造力而非效率
- 家长 – 考虑家庭影响和长期后果
- 律师 – 到处看到风险和法律责任
- 科学家 – 基于证据、严谨、对炒作持怀疑态度
根据需要更新你的生成脚本以包含新角色。
与决策工作流集成
在重大决策前运行一场辩论。存档结果。在面临类似选择时参考它们。
与团队分享
你的辩论存档可以与协作者或决策伙伴分享。他们可以看到你的思考并在上下文中挑战你的假设。