Team Refinement
Team-based adversarial spec refinement using Agent Teams. This evolves dm-work:dialectical-refinement from sequential pipeline to live debate.
Why Teams > Pipeline
The original dialectical-refinement runs 5 sequential phases (Analyst->Proposer->Advocate->Scope Lock->Judge) where each phase sees only the previous output. This prevents self-reinforcing mistakes but loses the back-and-forth of genuine argument. With Agent Teams, debaters are persistent -- the Advocate can push back on the Proposer while the Proposer is still formulating, creating richer adversarial tension.
When to Use
| Complexity | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| xs/s | Skip refinement entirely |
| m | Use dm-work:dialectical-refinement (2-phase, lightweight) |
| l/xl | Use refinement (full debate) |
Team Composition
| Role | Teammate | Model | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst | Teammate 1 | haiku | Surface ambiguity, identify gaps, tag protected items |
| Proposer | Teammate 2 | opus | Propose simplifications and cuts with confidence levels |
| Advocate | Teammate 3 | opus | Challenge cuts, defend scope, suggest cheap additions |
| Judge | Lead | opus | Moderate debate, enforce scope lock, synthesize final spec |
Protected Categories
Same as dm-work:dialectical-refinement — Core Workflow, Agent Primitives, User-Requested Features, Token Efficiency, Structured Output. Tag these early; Proposer does not propose cutting them.
Debate Protocol
Phase 1 -- Analysis (Analyst teammate)
- Read the spec/bead
- Surface ambiguity, undefined terms, implicit dependencies
- Tag protected items
- Share analysis with team
Phase 2 -- Live Debate (Proposer + Advocate, simultaneous)
- Proposer reviews analysis, proposes cuts with confidence (Strong/Moderate/Weak)
- Advocate receives proposals and challenges each one
- They message each other directly -- genuine back-and-forth
- Lead monitors for convergence (when new messages add <10% new information)
Phase 3 -- Scope Lock (Lead)
- Verify essential scope preserved using "Too Thin" indicators:
- Fewer than 5 commands/features for a system?
- Removed structured output (--json)?
- Removed range/anchor/batch capabilities?
- All m+ tasks cut to xs/s?
- If 2+ indicators trigger, tell Advocate to argue harder, resume debate
- HITL checkpoint: Use AskUserQuestion if significant scope decisions remain
Phase 4 -- Synthesis (Lead)
- Resolve remaining debates
- Write concrete implementation details
- Define testable acceptance criteria
- Document OUT OF SCOPE explicitly
- Quality gate: GO / GO with caveats / REVISE
Output Format
Same as dialectical-refinement for compatibility:
## Introduction
[What + Why in 2-3 sentences]
## Scope
[What's being built]
## Acceptance Criteria
[Testable outcomes]
## Out of Scope
[Explicit boundaries]
## Appendix A: Project Context (if needed)
[Token-efficient big picture: ~100-200 words max]
Anti-patterns
- Proposer and Advocate agreeing too quickly -- reframe perspectives
- Analyst doing too much work -- keep analysis phase fast with haiku
- Lead implementing during debate -- stay in delegate mode
- Skipping scope lock -- Too Thin indicators exist for a reason
- Running team refinement for xs/s tasks -- use subagent pipeline or skip
Related Skills
- dm-work:dialectical-refinement - Sequential alternative
- dm-team:council - General deliberation
- dm-team:compositions - Team template