name: ln-913-community-debater description: "Launches RFC and debate discussions on GitHub. Use when proposing changes that need community input or voting." disable-model-invocation: true license: MIT allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebFetch

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root. If shared/ is missing, fetch files via WebFetch from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/master/skills/{path}.

ln-913-community-debater

Type: L3 Worker (standalone) Category: 9XX Community Engagement Launches structured debate discussions in GitHub Discussions for decisions that benefit from community input.

Phase 0: GitHub Discovery

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/community_github_discovery.md

Execute the discovery protocol. Extract:

{owner}/{repo} for URLs and codebase context
repo.id for GraphQL mutation
categories["Ideas"] for RFC/Proposal discussions
categories["Polls"] for Prioritization polls
Verify required categories exist

Load strategy: check docs/community_engagement_strategy.md in target project, fallback to shared/references/community_strategy_template.md. Extract Section 3 (Debate Triggers) and Section 1 (Decision Matrix).

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/community_discussion_formatting.md MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/humanizer_checklist.md

Phase 1: Define the Topic

If $ARGUMENTS provided, use as the topic seed. Otherwise, ask the user what they want to debate.

Gather context:

Read strategy Section 3 -- verify this qualifies as a debate
Grep the codebase for files related to the topic
Read relevant SKILL.md files, docs, or shared references
Identify existing patterns that the proposal might change

Phase 2: Classify Debate Type

| Type | Prefix | Category | When to use | |------|--------|----------|-------------| | Maintainer RFC -- design mostly done, seeking validation | [RFC] | Ideas | End of design process, soft announcement | | Community RFC -- early stage, genuinely open to alternatives | [RFC] | Ideas | Beginning of design, kickstart discussion | | Proposal -- new feature or restructuring | [Proposal] | Ideas | Concrete idea with use case | | Workflow Change -- pipeline, task flow, or conventions | [RFC] | Ideas | Affects multiple areas or user workflows | | Prioritization -- what to build next, feature ranking | [Poll] | Polls | Multiple options, need community vote |

If type is Prioritization, switch to Polls flow (Phase 4).

Phase 3: Compose RFC Discussion

Use the RFC Structure Pattern from discussion_formatting.md (loaded in Phase 0).

Skill-specific additions beyond the shared pattern:

Add ## Unresolved Details section after Open Questions — implementation details not yet decided, to be resolved during development
Add ## Decision Criteria section — how the decision will be made (metrics, feedback threshold)
Minimum 2 alternatives in the Alternatives table

Phase 4: Compose Poll (for Prioritization type)

GitHub Discussions Polls are created via UI only. Instead, compose a reaction-based voting discussion:

## {Topic}

{1-2 sentence context}

**Vote by reacting to the options below** (each option is posted as a separate comment -- use :+1: to vote).

### Context
{Why this decision matters now}

After creating the discussion, post each option as a separate comment for reaction-based voting.

Phase 5: Fact-Check

Before presenting to user, verify every verifiable claim in the draft:

File paths & links -- verify each linked file exists: ls {path}. Remove or fix broken links.
Code references -- verify mentioned functions/patterns exist: grep -r "{name}".
Alternatives accuracy -- re-read source files to confirm the Alternatives table accurately describes tradeoffs. No hallucinated pros/cons.
Names -- verify skill names, directory names, config keys match actual repo state.
Humanizer audit -- run the audit protocol from humanizer_checklist.md. If 3+ AI patterns found, rewrite flagged sections.

Gate: If any check fails, fix the draft before proceeding.

Phase 6: Review and Publish

Present the composed title + body to the user. Wait for explicit approval before publishing.

After approval, publish via GraphQL using discovery context:

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($title: String!, $body: String!, $repoId: ID!, $catId: ID!) {
    createDiscussion(input: {
      repositoryId: $repoId,
      categoryId: $catId,
      title: $title,
      body: $body
    }) {
      discussion { url id }
    }
  }
' -f title="TITLE_HERE" -f body="BODY_HERE" -f repoId="{repo.id}" -f catId="{categories.Ideas or categories.Polls}"

For Polls, after creating the discussion, post each option as a comment:

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($discussionId: ID!, $body: String!) {
    addDiscussionComment(input: {
      discussionId: $discussionId,
      body: $body
    }) {
      comment { url }
    }
  }
' -f discussionId="DISCUSSION_NODE_ID" -f body="**Option N:** {description}"

Report the discussion URL to the user.

Rules

Always present the full composed text for user approval before publishing
Never publish without explicit user confirmation
Title: descriptive, under 80 chars, prefixed with [RFC], [Proposal], or [Poll]
Body: factual, not persuasive -- present options neutrally
Include links to relevant code/docs in the repository
Set a decision timeline when applicable
Minimum 2 alternatives in the Alternatives table
Tone: "We're considering X. Here are the tradeoffs. What's your take?"

Definition of Done

[ ] Topic defined with codebase context gathered
[ ] Debate type classified (RFC/Proposal/Workflow/Prioritization)
[ ] RFC or poll composed with minimum 2 alternatives
[ ] Fact-checked (links, code references, alternatives accuracy, names)
[ ] Humanizer audit passed (< 3 AI patterns)
[ ] User approved final draft
[ ] Published via GraphQL mutation, URL reported

Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-13

Débatteur communautaire

Recommandé pour