Summary
Add an Arena mode where two AI agents debate, attack, and defend code or technical proposals, with a judge agent scoring the results.
Usage
# Terminal 1: Attacker — finds bugs, vulnerabilities, and flaws
/squad red-team
# Terminal 2: Defender — fixes issues and counters arguments
/squad blue-team
# Terminal 3: Judge — scores rounds and declares winner
/squad judge
Use Cases
- Code security audit: Red team finds vulnerabilities, blue team patches them
- Architecture debate: Two agents argue pros/cons of different approaches
- Algorithm competition: Who writes faster/cleaner code for the same problem
Why
Adversarial review catches significantly more issues than single-agent review. This mode makes multi-agent collaboration more engaging and produces higher-quality output through structured debate.
Implementation
Phase 1 (minimal): Add 3 new role templates (red-team.md, blue-team.md, judge.md) under .squad/roles/. Zero code changes — just prompt engineering.
Phase 2 (optional): Add squad arena subcommand that:
- Auto-initializes a 3-agent arena session
- Structures rounds (attack → defend → judge)
- Tracks scores and generates a summary report
Labels
enhancement, good first issue
Summary
Add an Arena mode where two AI agents debate, attack, and defend code or technical proposals, with a judge agent scoring the results.
Usage
Use Cases
Why
Adversarial review catches significantly more issues than single-agent review. This mode makes multi-agent collaboration more engaging and produces higher-quality output through structured debate.
Implementation
Phase 1 (minimal): Add 3 new role templates (
red-team.md,blue-team.md,judge.md) under.squad/roles/. Zero code changes — just prompt engineering.Phase 2 (optional): Add
squad arenasubcommand that:Labels
enhancement, good first issue