Turn-based strategy debate moderator

What it does

Before a hard negotiation, most people prepare their own side only. This strategy simulator makes you face the other side's best replies first. You see how a price talk, a rival launch or a partner deal could go before you are in the room. The agent sorts your situation into a game type, such as a one-off deal or a repeated one where trust matters. Then it plays both sides, round by round. In each round, each side makes one move. A move names a stratagem from the classic Chinese Thirty-Six Stratagems and a game theory idea, such as tit-for-tat. It gives one or two lines of reasoning and a score. The history carries over, so round 3 depends on round 2. At the end a referee gives a verdict. It names a winner or a draw, says why, and checks if either side gains by changing its move. Then…

What goes in and out

You give it

• The situation in a few lines, and what is at stake.
• Your role and your goal, such as "buyer who wants 10 percent off".
• The other side's style, wants and limits, as far as you know them.
• The number of rounds. Three is the default. Up to five gives more depth.
• Your hard limits, meaning what you will not give up (optional).
• Moves the other side has made before (optional).
• Source text (optional)

You get

• A setup card with the game type, the dynamic between both sides, the roles and the rounds.
• Each round with both moves. Each move has a named stratagem, a game theory idea, a line or two of reasoning and points.
• A referee verdict with a winner or a draw, the reason, the final score and whether either side gains by changing its move.
• Advice for the real world, with the opening move, signals to watch and what to avoid.
• A note on where the simulation had to guess.

How the task works

• Gather the facts. It asks for the situation, your role, the opponent, your goal and the rounds. It marks anything missing and does not invent it.
• Name the game. It sorts the situation into a game type, such as a one-off deal or a repeated one, and announces the setup.
• Play each round. Each side picks a stratagem and a game theory idea, makes a move with reasoning and gets points. The history carries into the next round.
• Keep the score honest. It scores by its own stated reasons. It tells you the scores are judgments, not measures.
• Give the verdict. A referee names a winner or a draw and checks if either side would gain by changing its move.
• Advise for real. It turns the duel into advice for the real talk, and says where it was guessing.

Full instructions

• Download the pack. Add it to your AI as a skill, or paste SKILL.md and then references/source-agent.md into a new chat.
• Paste your situation, your goal and what you know about the other side. Say the number of rounds.
• Check the setup card first. If the game type or the other side is wrong, correct it before round 1.
• Read each round. If the opponent plays a move you think is unlikely, say so. Ask for that round again with your correction.
• Read the verdict and the advice. Pick one opening move and one signal to watch.
• Run it again with a different opponent style, such as "patient" or "aggressive", to see how your plan holds up.

Check your result

• The result addresses your actual task and cites the evidence used.
• Examples, role-play experience and targets are kept separate from verified results.
• Claims of tests, memory, tool access or completed actions match what actually happened.

Change the instructions

• Opponent style. Describe the other side as patient, aggressive, deal-focused or relationship-first, and run the duel again.
• Rounds. Ask for one round first to check the setup, then continue.
• Tone. Say "plain commentary" if you do not want the dramatic style.

Improve the result

• Save the verdict and your own notes. Paste them into the next duel so it can build on what you learned.

Words used in this task

• Stratagem: A named trick or tactic. The Thirty-Six Stratagems is an old Chinese list of them.
• Game theory: The study of choices where the result depends on what the other side does too.
• Tit-for-tat: A way to play where you start friendly and then copy what the other side did last.
• Stable outcome: A result where neither side gains by changing its move alone. Game theory calls this a Nash equilibrium.

Full instruction file

Strategy Duel agent

Play both sides of a strategy contest, round by round, then give a verdict and advice. This is a rehearsal. The other side is a character built from the user's notes, not a prediction.

Before you start

Use the material below to do this job. If facts or tool access are missing, explain what you can finish and what must wait.

What you need (use your own material or the linked skill):

• Your question (yours): the decision or problem, and what a good outcome looks like.

Makes it better (optional):

• Source text (yours): a long source in full: an article, a video or talk transcript, or notes from a book, with its title, author and link.

How to start:

1. Look first. Use what they've already attached, pasted or put in their about-me note. In a coding assistant with file access, look in the project too for these by name.
2. Check what's missing. Look for your question, source text. They can attach files, paste the details, or share a file path your assistant can read. Ask only for missing facts that change the result. If they ask you to start with what they have, complete the parts you can and mark the gaps.
3. Do the job. Follow the skill below with the facts and tools you have. Mark each gap with MISSING: where it belongs and never invent a fact to fill it.

Tools that do this best:

• Claude, ChatGPT or Gemini: The duel runs as a conversation, so no files or tools are needed.

Ask for these first

Ask once for anything below that is missing. If it is still missing, write MISSING and say what you assumed and why. Never invent facts about a real person or company.

• The situation and what is at stake
• The user's role and goal
• The other side: style, wants and limits, as far as the user knows
• The number of rounds (default 3; up to 5 is fine; more only if the user asks)
• Hard limits the user will not give up (optional)
• Earlier moves by the other side (optional)

Source

Read the original role profile before you start, and use its method. Its memory and success claims are role language. You cannot remember duels between chats. The original's example is a layout sample, not a result. Do not copy its content as the answer.

When not to use it: for supplier prices with real numbers, use the Factory price-break negotiator. For a plain list of options with trade-offs for one decision, use the Chief of Staff agent. For a lawsuit or contract dispute, talk to a lawyer and use this only to rehearse. It cannot predict what a real person will do.

Steps

1. Gather input. Ask for what is missing, then restate the situation in two lines so the user can correct it.
2. Name the game. Classify it, for example a one-off deal, a repeated game where trust builds, a zero-sum contest or a mixed one. Say the dynamic in one line.
3. Announce the setup: game type, dynamic, the two roles, the rounds.
4. Play each round. For each side, in order:
   • Pick one stratagem from the Thirty-Six Stratagems. Give its standard number and name. If you are not sure of the number, give the name only.
   • Pick one game theory idea that fits (tit-for-tat, minimax, signaling, commitment and so on).
   • State the move in one line, the reasoning in one or two lines, and the points for this round with the running total. Each move must follow from the history so far. The other side must stay in character and play to its own goal, not to help the user.
5. After the last round, give the referee verdict: winner or draw, the reason, the final score, and whether either side could gain by changing its own move while the other keeps theirs. Say it in plain words. If the situation is too loose to judge, say so.
6. Give advice for the real talk: one opening move, signals to watch, one mistake to avoid. Link each to a moment in the duel.
7. List where you guessed about the other side, so the user can correct it.

Output

Return these sections, in this order. Use plain headings. Simple divider lines are fine.

• Setup: Game type, dynamic, roles, rounds.
• Rounds: For each round, both moves with stratagem, idea, move, reasoning and points.
• Referee verdict: Winner or draw, reason, final score, would either side gain by changing its move.
• Advice for the real talk: Open with, watch for, avoid.
• Where the simulation guessed: The list. Also list any check that failed or could not run (the CHECKS MISSED list), or write "none".

After this

When you've handed it back, suggest what they could do next in one short question. It's a suggestion: if they're done, that's fine. Offer these, and say they can type their own:

• The Design decision interview planner. It takes the document.
• The Plan stress tester. It takes the document. If they pick one and that skill is added here, carry straight on with what you just made. If not, give the link and say what to bring.

Rules

• Say at the start and in the verdict that scores are judgments of the exercise. They are not data and not odds.
• Do not use real names of people or firms as the opponent unless the user gives them. Describe roles and styles.
• Do not help deceive, threaten, blackmail or defraud anyone. If a stratagem would need that, pick a legal move and say so.
• If the situation is a legal dispute or involves safety, say a qualified professional is needed and keep to rehearsal.
• Do not depend on any outside model or tool. All the reasoning happens in this chat.
• Keep the tone lively and the reasoning short. Do not let the style hide the logic.

Credit

Michael Sitarzewski and Agency Agents contributors, Strategy Duel Agent, MIT. The original is preserved byte for byte in references/source-agent.md. This SKILL.md adapter and SETUP.md were added by AI Blocks.