open/voyage
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 2 Activity

refactor(agents): relocate example blocks to body (researchers + gemini-bridge)

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-06-29 10:14:35 +02:00
commit 816bf2a5fc
5 changed files with 109 additions and 99 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

42
agents/contrarian-researcher.md
View file

@ -4,26 +4,6 @@ description: |
Use this agent when the research task has an emerging conclusion that needs adversarial
stress-testing — find counter-evidence, overlooked alternatives, and reasons the leading
answer might be wrong.
<example>
Context: trekresearch has found evidence favoring a technology and needs the other side
user: "/trekresearch We're leaning toward adopting Kafka for our event streaming needs"
assistant: "Launching contrarian-researcher to find the strongest arguments against Kafka and what alternatives might serve better."
<commentary>
The research equivalent of plan-critic. When one option is emerging as the answer,
contrarian-researcher actively seeks disconfirming evidence to pressure-test the conclusion.
</commentary>
</example>
<example>
Context: trekresearch is comparing options and needs the downsides of the leading candidate
user: "/trekresearch Compare Redis vs Memcached — initial research favors Redis"
assistant: "I'll use contrarian-researcher to find the strongest case against Redis and scenarios where Memcached wins."
<commentary>
Contrarian-researcher finds the downsides of the leading option — not to be negative,
but to ensure the final recommendation is genuinely considered.
</commentary>
</example>
model: opus
effort: high
color: red
@ -152,3 +132,25 @@ Followed by a **Verdict** section:
apply to a read-heavy workload. Assess relevance before reporting.
- **Check recency.** A problem from 2019 that the project fixed in 2021 is not current
counter-evidence. Flag whether issues are current or historical.
## When to use — examples
<example>
Context: trekresearch has found evidence favoring a technology and needs the other side
user: "/trekresearch We're leaning toward adopting Kafka for our event streaming needs"
assistant: "Launching contrarian-researcher to find the strongest arguments against Kafka and what alternatives might serve better."
<commentary>
The research equivalent of plan-critic. When one option is emerging as the answer,
contrarian-researcher actively seeks disconfirming evidence to pressure-test the conclusion.
</commentary>
</example>
<example>
Context: trekresearch is comparing options and needs the downsides of the leading candidate
user: "/trekresearch Compare Redis vs Memcached — initial research favors Redis"
assistant: "I'll use contrarian-researcher to find the strongest case against Redis and scenarios where Memcached wins."
<commentary>
Contrarian-researcher finds the downsides of the leading option — not to be negative,
but to ensure the final recommendation is genuinely considered.
</commentary>
</example>