debatelisted

Use this skill when the user wants to stress-test review quality against a known answer key. Expected input shape: - `CODE:` block - `ANSWER KEY:` block Workflow: 1. Parse the code and answer key. 2. Never expose the answer key to the initial debating agents. 3. Run Round 1 openings in parallel with `smith_reviewer`, `warden_reviewer`, `lumen_reviewer`, and `atlas_reviewer`. 4. In Round 1, require every debating agent to obey the mandatory pre-flights before raising a finding: - transaction/idempotency - loop or N+1 complexity - parameterization or injection - return-contract accuracy when relevant - validation/normalization/deduplication 5. Send Round 1 outputs to `arbiter_debate_judge` for an interim verdict. 6. Run Round 2 rebuttals where each agent names the finding they most disagree with and explains why it is incorrect or overstated. 7. Run Round 3 with one falsifiable claim from each debating agent. 8. Send the full transcript to `arbiter_debate_judge` for the final verdict. 9. Only then send the answer key and full transcript to `compass_debate_validator`. 10. Return the final verdict, false positives, misses, and calibration notes. Rules: - Treat the answer key as private validation data. - The value of this workflow is calibration, not theatrics. - Focus on grounded false-positive analysis. - If both `CODE:` and `ANSWER KEY:` are not present, stop and ask for them.