Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
效率只读clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计提醒

team-discuss团队讨论

Agent Skill

team-discuss 用于补充效率相关能力,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要让 Agent 承接效率相关任务时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

9,526

周安装

405

GitHub Stars

1

下载量

3,337
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:team-discuss(团队讨论)
来源仓库:https://github.com/chyher/team-discuss
安装命令:
openclaw skills install team-discuss
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install team-discuss

简介

提供结构化多轮讨论框架,支持辩证分析与随机发言顺序。

  • 适用于需要深度思考、多方观点碰撞的任务场景。team-discuss 属于效率类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 具备共享状态管理与真实子智能体集成能力,增强决策质量。
  • 可通过自然语言指令启动讨论流程,无需复杂配置。
  • 注意评估其对计算资源的需求及潜在交互延迟问题。

SKILL.md

Team-Discuss Skill

Multi-agent collaborative discussion tool for efficient collaboration and alignment.

Features

  • Multi-round discussions: Automatic progression until consensus or round limit
  • Dialectical logic: Automatic citation detection, fallacy identification, argument quality assessment
  • Random speaking order: Eliminates first-mover advantage
  • Shared state: File-based persistence with concurrent access support
  • Real agent integration: Call real sub-agents via sessions_spawn

Use Cases

  1. Technology selection discussions - SQLite vs PostgreSQL, React vs Vue, etc.
  2. Architecture design reviews - Multi-role collaboration (architect, frontend, backend, tester)
  3. Product decision making - Feature prioritization, UX trade-offs
  4. Philosophical debates - Free will vs determinism, ethics in AI, consciousness theories
  5. Scientific controversies - Interpretations of quantum mechanics, origins of life
  6. Policy analysis - Economic strategies, environmental policies, social reforms
  7. Creative collaborations - Story plot decisions, character development, artistic direction
  8. Any topic requiring multi-perspective analysis

Quick Start

1. Create Discussion

from core import SharedStore, DiscussionOrchestrator
from models import Discussion, DiscussionConfig, Participant, AgentRole

# Initialize
store = SharedStore(base_dir="./discussions")
orchestrator = DiscussionOrchestrator(store)

# Create discussion
discussion = Discussion(
    id="my-discussion-001",
    topic="Which storage layer should we use?",
    description="SQLite vs PostgreSQL technology selection",
    max_rounds=3,
    config=DiscussionConfig(consensus_threshold=0.75),
    participants=[
        Participant(agent_id="architect", role_id=AgentRole.ARCHITECT),
        Participant(agent_id="backend", role_id=AgentRole.DEVOPS),
    ]
)

store.create_discussion(discussion)

2. Define Agent Callbacks

async def agent_callback(discussion_id, round_num, previous_messages):
    # Build prompt
    prompt = build_prompt(round_num, previous_messages)
    
    # Call real agent
    response = await sessions_spawn(
        runtime="subagent",
        agentId="architect",
        mode="run",
        task=prompt
    )
    
    return response, MessageType.PROPOSAL

callbacks = {
    "architect": agent_callback,
    "backend": agent_callback,
}

3. Run Discussion

# Run discussion
result = await orchestrator.run_discussion(discussion.id, callbacks)

# View results
print(f"Status: {result.status}")
print(f"Rounds: {result.current_round}")
print(f"Consensus: {result.consensus_level}")

Dialectical Logic

Automatic Detection

from core import DialecticEngine

dialectic = DialecticEngine()
analysis = dialectic.analyze_message(message, previous_messages)

print(f"Quality: {analysis.quality}")  # strong/moderate/weak/fallacious
print(f"Score: {analysis.score}")
print(f"Citation: {analysis.has_citation}")
print(f"Fallacies: {analysis.fallacies}")

Detected Fallacy Types

  • ad_hominem - Personal attack
  • straw_man - Straw man fallacy
  • false_dichotomy - False dilemma
  • hasty_generalization - Hasty generalization
  • appeal_to_authority - Appeal to authority
  • slippery_slope - Slippery slope

Bias Prevention Mechanisms

1. Random Speaking Order

# First round random shuffle, subsequent rounds rotate
order = coordinator.determine_speaking_order(
    participants,
    SpeakingOrder.ROUND_ROBIN
)

2. Mandatory Citation

From round 2, agents must cite opponent's original words:

I disagree with @architect's view:
> "Choosing PostgreSQL is not premature optimization"

This statement is misleading...

3. Devil's Advocate

Assign an agent to play devil's advocate:

# Assign tester as Devil's Advocate
# Even if they agree internally, they must defend the minority position

Project Structure

team-discuss/
├── src/
│   ├── core/
│   │   ├── shared_store.py      # Shared state storage
│   │   ├── orchestrator.py      # Multi-round orchestrator
│   │   ├── dialectic.py         # Dialectical logic engine
│   │   └── coordinator.py       # Coordinator logic
│   ├── agents/
│   │   └── bridge.py            # Agent bridge
│   └── models.py                # Data models
├── examples/
│   └── run_real_discussion.py   # Real discussion example
└── tests/
    └── test_integration.py      # Integration tests

Configuration Options

DiscussionConfig

DiscussionConfig(
    max_rounds=5,                    # Maximum rounds
    min_rounds_before_consensus=2,   # Minimum rounds before consensus
    consensus_threshold=0.75,        # Consensus threshold (75% agreement)
    token_budget=50000,              # Token budget
)

Speaking Order

SpeakingOrder.FREE           # Free speaking (random)
SpeakingOrder.ROUND_ROBIN    # Round robin (recommended)
SpeakingOrder.ROLE_BASED     # Role-based priority

Examples

Technology Selection Discussion

# Run example
cd /root/.openclaw/workspace/data/projects/team-discuss
python3 examples/run_real_discussion.py

Philosophical Debate Example

# Create a philosophical discussion
discussion = Discussion(
    id="philosophy-debate-001",
    topic="Does free will exist, or is everything determined?",
    description="Philosophical debate on free will vs determinism",
    max_rounds=3,
    participants=[
        Participant(agent_id="philosopher1", role_id=AgentRole.REVIEWER),
        Participant(agent_id="scientist", role_id=AgentRole.ARCHITECT),
        Participant(agent_id="skeptic", role_id=AgentRole.TESTER),
    ]
)

Philosophical debates benefit from:

  • Dialectical logic - Detects logical fallacies common in abstract reasoning
  • Mandatory citation - Ensures philosophers engage with specific arguments
  • Multi-round structure - Allows deep exploration of complex concepts

Sample output:

🔄 Round 1 started
💬 @architect (Architect):
   I support using PostgreSQL...
   📊 Quality: moderate (70.0 points)

💬 @backend (Backend Dev):
   I support using SQLite...
   📊 Quality: moderate (60.0 points)

✅ Round 1 ended

🔄 Round 2 started
💬 @architect:
   Responding to @backend:
   > "Premature optimization is the root of all evil"
   This statement confuses...
   📊 Quality: strong (85.0 points)
   📌 Citation: ✓

✅ Round 2 ended

✓ Discussion completed!
Final status: max_rounds_reached
Consensus level: partial

Best Practices

1. Topic Design

  • Clear, specific, debatable
  • Avoid overly broad topics (e.g., "what's the best technology")
  • Provide necessary context

2. Agent Selection

  • Cover different perspectives (architecture, dev, test, product)
  • Avoid homogeneity (don't use all backend devs)
  • Consider adding Devil's Advocate

3. Round Settings

  • Simple topics: 2-3 rounds
  • Complex topics: 5 rounds
  • Set min_rounds_before_consensus to prevent premature convergence

4. Result Interpretation

  • CONSENSUS_REACHED - Consensus reached, can execute directly
  • MAX_ROUNDS_REACHED - Requires human judgment
  • COMPLETED - Discussion ended naturally

Troubleshooting

Agent Not Responding

orchestrator = DiscussionOrchestrator(
    store=store,
    response_timeout=180  # Increase timeout
)

Version Conflicts

Shared storage uses optimistic locking, automatically retries on conflict.

Storage Location

store = SharedStore(base_dir="/path/to/discussions")

Extension Development

Custom Agent Bridge

class MyAgentBridge:
    async def generate_response(self, ...):
        # Custom calling logic
        pass

Custom Dialectic Rules

class MyDialecticEngine(DialecticEngine):
    def _detect_fallacies(self, content):
        # Add custom fallacy detection
        pass

Related Links

  • Project path: /root/.openclaw/workspace/data/projects/team-discuss
  • Example code: examples/run_real_discussion.py
  • Integration tests: tests/test_integration.py

Version History

  • v0.1.0 - Basic features: shared storage, multi-round orchestration, dialectical logic
  • v0.2.0 - Real agent integration (sessions_spawn)
  • v0.3.0 - CLI interface, Web UI (planned)

Roadmap

Coming Soon

FeatureStatusDescription
Devil's Advocate🚧 In DevelopmentAuto-assign minority role, ensure opposition voices heard
Stance Change Rewards🚧 In DevelopmentReward agents for rationally changing position
CLI Interface📋 PlannedCommand-line tool for creating/viewing/managing discussions
REST API📋 PlannedHTTP API for remote calls
Web UI📋 PlannedVisual discussion dashboard

Release Plan

  • v0.2.1 - Devil's Advocate + Stance Change Rewards
  • v0.3.0 - CLI Interface + REST API
  • v0.4.0 - Web UI Dashboard
📦 Published to clawhub.com

中文简介

Team-Discuss 是一个多 Agent 协作讨论工具,支持多轮迭代、辩证逻辑分析、随机发言顺序等特性,帮助团队高效对齐方案。

核心功能

  • ✅ 多轮讨论,自动推进
  • ✅ 辩证逻辑,检测论证质量
  • ✅ 随机发言顺序,消除偏向性
  • ✅ 共享状态,持久化存储
  • ✅ 真实 Agent 集成

快速开始

cd /root/.openclaw/workspace/data/skills/team-discuss
python3 example.py

项目路径

/root/.openclaw/workspace/data/projects/team-discuss/

即将发布

  • 🚧 Devil's Advocate 机制
  • 🚧 立场变更奖励
  • 📋 CLI 接口
  • 📋 REST API
  • 📋 Web UI 仪表盘
📦 已发布到 clawhub.com

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

78.92%
按下载量换算2,634

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills