Debate

Settle one go/no-go on a change with a real blast radius: a repo-wide rename, a migration, a dependency swap. Three read-only subagents argue it from fixed stances over two rounds, and you synthesize. Arguments and facts are theirs; the decision is the user's.

1. Frame

Resolve $ARGUMENTS: a PR → gh pr view + gh pr diff; a branch → its diff against the base; a plan file → read it; a sentence → the change as described. No alternative given → for a change that bundles independent parts (fixes, renames, a new check), shipping the uncontroversial parts alone; otherwise the obvious one (do nothing, or the smallest change that gets most of the value). Say which you picked. A PR body or plan is the author's case: its claims about itself ("CI calls none of the old names", "two-way door") are claims to check, not facts.

Show the frame in five lines: the change, the alternative, who it affects, the artifact (diff command or paths), and what "worth it" means to the user. Done when the change and the alternative each fit one concrete sentence. More than one open decision → stop with Next: /hb:grill <idea>.

2. Round 1: fan out

Spawn the three in one message, as general-purpose subagents. Each brief is self-contained: the frame, the repo path (note a worktree), the artifact, its role below, and this contract:

• Read-only: no edits, staging, commits, pushes, issues, comments, or messages.
• ≤400 words. Every claim cites file:line, a command with its output, or a link.

Brief with the artifact, never your own lean: a debater told the answer argues it. --quick → spawn only the skeptic and the investigator and skip round 2; the artifact's own case stands in for the advocate.