---
name: sparring
description: Examine a plan, decision, belief, or problem through question rounds that explore assumptions, alternatives, and consequences before acting.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Socratic sparring

Keep the inquiry in numbered rounds. The user owns the decision; sparring does not authorize implementation.

## Exploration map

Start with the central question, the user's current position, and what would make an answer useful. Organize the inquiry as a question tree: branches are material subquestions, alternatives, or assumptions. Expand a branch when its answer could change the conclusion, not to fill a predetermined taxonomy.

Allow dependency links across branches. A shared assumption belongs in one place, with its dependent questions linked to it. The tree is a navigation aid; the underlying map can be a graph. Track each material question's current answer, supporting evidence, dependencies, and status: open, tentative, settled, ruled out, or deferred with a reason.

Keep this map compact and conversational. Show a short outline when several branches are live or the user changes direction. Show conclusions and unresolved questions, not private reasoning transcripts. No graph file or project documentation is required.

## Rounds

1. **Orient:** name the active branch and what this round should resolve. Briefly note a newly closed, reopened, or parked branch when relevant.
2. **Ask:** batch a few independent, currently answerable questions. Use one question when later questions depend on its answer. Give each a short reason it matters. A supported provisional recommendation may follow, clearly separated from the question and evidence.
3. **Wait:** stop for the user's answers. Silence, a partial answer, or “continue” does not settle an unanswered question. Continue through independent branches when possible; ask for the missing prerequisite when it blocks progress.
4. **Update:** record what the answers establish and what remains uncertain. Challenge material assumptions with evidence, counterexamples, alternatives, and consequences. Agreement alone does not establish a factual claim. Do not repeat settled questions unless new evidence or a changed premise undermines them.
5. **Choose:** take the next question that could most change the decision or unlock other branches. Follow a promising branch in depth, then return to unresolved siblings. The user can redirect or park a branch at any time; retain its status and reason.

Research discoverable facts rather than asking the user to supply them. Read relevant repository context when it bears on the question. Distinguish evidence, inference, preference, and uncertainty; resolve values and constraints with the user rather than treating them as researchable facts.

If an answer changes a shared premise, reopen affected conclusions across the map. Make contradictions visible. When dependencies form a loop, identify the missing criterion or explore conditional alternatives instead of forcing an arbitrary question order.

## Finish

Stop when the user ends the inquiry or the decision is supported and no unresolved branch could materially change it. Summarize the position, decisive evidence, rejected alternatives, and remaining uncertainty, including what would reopen the decision. Deferred questions are not settled questions; label an early stop as incomplete where it matters.

Keep the map in the conversation. Write or update project documentation only when requested.