moa-cli 0.2.2__tar.gz → 0.3.0__tar.gz

{moa_cli-0.2.2 → moa_cli-0.3.0}/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.3
 Name: moa-cli
-Version: 0.2.2
+Version: 0.3.0
 Summary: Ask one question to multiple local AI coding CLIs in parallel and collect their answers.
 Keywords: llm,agents,cli,claude,codex,agy,opencode,peer-review
 Author: Paul-Louis Pröve
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Description-Content-Type: text/markdown
 
 # MOA - Mixture of Agents
 
-Ask one question to multiple local AI coding CLIs **in parallel** and collect their answers. MOA detects which agent CLIs you have installed (Claude Code, Codex, agy, opencode), fans your prompt out to them, and streams each answer back the moment that agent finishes. Or run `moa distill` to have a strong aggregator merge those answers into a single unified response, or `moa debate` to have them critique each other across rounds before a neutral judge gives the verdict.
+Ask one question to multiple local AI coding CLIs **in parallel** and collect their answers. MOA detects which agent CLIs you have installed (Claude Code, Codex, agy, opencode), fans your prompt out to them, and streams each answer back the moment that agent finishes. Or run `moa distill` to have a strong aggregator merge those answers into a single unified response, or `moa debate` to have them critique each other across rounds while a moderator checks for convergence and writes the verdict.
 
 It's a drop-in, batteries-included replacement for hand-rolling parallel `claude -p` / `codex exec` / `opencode run` calls (or a "peer review" agent skill): one command, clean attributed output, made to be called by a human **or** by another agent.
 
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ MOA has three prompt verbs that share the same selection/output options:
 
 - **`moa ask PROMPT`** - council / peer review: N agents answer the same prompt in parallel; every answer is returned with attribution, streamed as it lands.
 - **`moa distill PROMPT`** - synthesis: run the council, then one strong aggregator merges the answers into a single unified response.
-- **`moa debate PROMPT`** - sequential debate: two debaters answer and adversarially critique each other across rounds, then a separate neutral judge writes the final verdict. The costliest mode; read the caveats below before reaching for it.
+- **`moa debate PROMPT`** - sequential debate: two debaters answer and adversarially critique each other across rounds, with a moderator that checks for convergence between rounds and writes the final verdict. The costliest mode; read the caveats below before reaching for it.
 
 ```bash
 moa doctor                                  # show installed CLIs and their default models
@@ -87,12 +87,12 @@ moa ask --json "..."                        # machine-readable JSONL (for agents
 git diff | moa ask -f - "Review this diff." # read the prompt from stdin
 moa distill "Design a rate limiter."        # council, then merge into one answer
 moa distill -s codex "..."                  # pick who distills (auto | random | provider)
-moa debate "Is this race condition real?"   # 2 debaters + a judge (default n=3)
+moa debate "Is this race condition real?"   # 2 debaters; the first also moderates (default 2 agents)
 moa debate -r 3 "..."                        # more rounds (default 2, hard max 4)
-moa debate -j claude "..."                   # pin who judges (must not be a debater)
+moa debate --moderator agy "..."             # pin a neutral moderator (a non-debater)
 ```
 
-The shared options (`-n/--num`, `-p/--provider`, `-x/--exclude`, `-m/--model`, `-t/--timeout`, `-f/--file`, `--json`, `--yolo`) work identically on all three verbs. `distill` adds `-s/--synthesizer`; `debate` adds `-r/--rounds` and `-j/--judge`.
+The shared options (`-n/--num`, `-p/--provider`, `-x/--exclude`, `-m/--model`, `-t/--timeout`, `-f/--file`, `--json`, `--yolo`) work identically on all three verbs. `distill` adds `-s/--synthesizer`; `debate` adds `-r/--rounds` and `--moderator`.
 
 ### Read-only by default
 
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ moa config unset num                  # remove a key
 moa config unset model claude         # remove one [models] entry
 ```
 
-The synthesizer default is persistable too (e.g. `moa config set synthesizer codex`); `debate`'s `-r/--rounds` and `-j/--judge` are not persisted. CLI `-m` overrides win per-provider over the config `[models]` table.
+The role defaults are persistable too: the distill `synthesizer` and the debate `moderator` (e.g. `moa config set synthesizer codex`, `moa config set moderator agy`). `debate`'s `-r/--rounds` is not persisted. CLI `-m` overrides win per-provider over the config `[models]` table.
 
 ### Output
 
@@ -221,23 +221,23 @@ The synthesizer default is persistable too (e.g. `moa config set synthesizer cod
 
 The aggregator prompt is adapted from the Mixture-of-Agents "Aggregate-and-Synthesize" prompt (Wang et al. 2024): it tells the aggregator to critically evaluate the inputs (some may be biased or incorrect) and not to simply replicate them but offer a refined, accurate, comprehensive reply.
 
-### `moa debate` (sequential debate + neutral judge)
+### `moa debate` (sequential debate + moderator)
 
-`debate` is the opt-in, highest-cost mode. Instead of fanning out in parallel, it runs a sequential, adversarial exchange and then asks a **separate neutral judge** to write the final answer.
+`debate` is the opt-in, highest-cost mode. Instead of fanning out in parallel, it runs a sequential, adversarial exchange overseen by a **moderator** that checks for convergence between rounds and writes the final answer.
 
-**Roles.** By default the top **2** selected agents are the debaters and the **3rd** is the judge - so the default `-n 3` maps to *2 debaters + 1 judge*. Pin a specific judge with `-j/--judge PROVIDER`; the judge must be one of the selected agents and must **not** also be a debater. Debate needs at least 2 debaters and 1 distinct judge, so it needs at least 3 agents; with fewer it exits with a clear message rather than silently degrading.
+**Roles.** The top **2** selected agents are the debaters. The **moderator** runs the per-round convergence check and writes the verdict; by default it is the top-priority selected agent (so the default 2-agent debate has agent #1 also moderate). Debate only needs **2 agents**; with fewer it exits cleanly rather than silently degrading. For a **neutral** moderator that doesn't also debate, select a third agent and pin it: `moa debate -n 3 --moderator <provider>` (the moderator must be one of the selected agents). The moderator only ever sees the transcript **anonymized + shuffled**, so even when it is itself a debater it can't favour its own answer.
 
 **Rounds.** `-r/--rounds` defaults to **2** (gains plateau around 2-3 rounds while token cost grows multiplicatively) and is hard-capped at **4** - higher values are clamped with a warning on stderr.
 
-**The loop.** Round 1: debater A answers cold; debater B sees A's answer with an adversarial-stance instruction ("identify errors/weaknesses before giving your own answer; do not agree merely to reach consensus"). Each later round, every debater sees the other's latest answer and responds in the same spirit. If every debater signals it has *no substantive change* (it may open its reply with `NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE`), the debate stops early before the cap.
+**The loop.** Round 1: debater A answers cold; debater B sees A's answer with an adversarial-stance instruction ("identify errors/weaknesses before giving your own answer; do not agree merely to reach consensus"). Each later round, every debater sees the other's latest answer and responds in the same spirit. After each non-final round the **moderator** reads the debaters' latest answers and replies `DONE` (they've converged or fully aired their disagreement) or `CONTINUE`; a `DONE` stops the debate before the cap.
 
-**The judge.** A model that is **not** a debater reads the full transcript - presented **anonymized and order-shuffled** (a model is judging, so brand/position bias is killed) - and writes the final answer. Its prompt instructs it to weigh correctness and evidence **above** confidence and fluency. The judge's verdict is the final block (`──── verdict · judge <name> · ... ────`).
+**The verdict.** The moderator reads the full transcript - presented **anonymized and order-shuffled** (so brand/position bias is killed, even when the moderator was a debater) - and writes the final answer. Its prompt instructs it to weigh correctness and evidence **above** confidence and fluency. The verdict is the final block (`──── verdict · moderator <name> · ... ────`).
 
-**Streaming/output.** Each debater's turn streams as it completes (`──── round N · <provider> · ... ────`), then the judge's verdict last. `--json` emits a `{"type": "debate_turn", "round": N, ...}` record per turn plus a final `{"type": "verdict", ...}` record.
+**Streaming/output.** Each debater's turn streams as it completes (`──── round N · <provider> · ... ────`), then the moderator's verdict last. `--json` emits a `{"type": "debate_turn", "round": N, ...}` record per turn plus a final `{"type": "verdict", "moderator": "<name>", ...}` record.
 
-**Safety.** Debaters and the judge run in the same read-only (or `--yolo`) mode as the other verbs - there is no permission bypass. agy's partial-sandbox caveat (shell only; it can still edit files) applies here too.
+**Safety.** Debaters and the moderator run in the same read-only (or `--yolo`) mode as the other verbs - there is no permission bypass. agy's partial-sandbox caveat (shell only; it can still edit files) applies here too.
 
-> **Caveat - use sparingly.** Debate is the costliest mode (roughly `debaters x rounds + 1` model calls) **and the least reliably beneficial.** The research is mixed-to-negative: multi-agent debate can converge on a *wrong* answer through conformity, a confident-but-incorrect debater can win on persuasiveness over correctness, and more rounds can entrench an error rather than fix it. The separate neutral judge and the adversarial-stance prompt are there to fight these failure modes, but they do not eliminate them. For most questions, `ask` or `distill` is the better default; reach for `debate` when you specifically want to surface and stress-test disagreement. (See *Can LLM Agents Really Debate?* arXiv:2511.07784, *Talk Isn't Always Cheap* arXiv:2509.05396, and the conformity/position-bias work cited in the design notes.)
+> **Caveat - use sparingly.** Debate is the costliest mode (roughly `debaters × rounds` calls, plus a moderator check per round and the verdict) **and the least reliably beneficial.** The research is mixed-to-negative: multi-agent debate can converge on a *wrong* answer through conformity, a confident-but-incorrect debater can win on persuasiveness over correctness, and more rounds can entrench an error rather than fix it. The moderator and the adversarial-stance prompt are there to fight these failure modes, but they do not eliminate them. For most questions, `ask` or `distill` is the better default; reach for `debate` when you specifically want to surface and stress-test disagreement. (See *Can LLM Agents Really Debate?* arXiv:2511.07784, *Talk Isn't Always Cheap* arXiv:2509.05396, and the conformity/position-bias work cited in the design notes.)
 
 ### Attribution policy
 

{moa_cli-0.2.2 → moa_cli-0.3.0}/README.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 
 # MOA - Mixture of Agents
 
-Ask one question to multiple local AI coding CLIs **in parallel** and collect their answers. MOA detects which agent CLIs you have installed (Claude Code, Codex, agy, opencode), fans your prompt out to them, and streams each answer back the moment that agent finishes. Or run `moa distill` to have a strong aggregator merge those answers into a single unified response, or `moa debate` to have them critique each other across rounds before a neutral judge gives the verdict.
+Ask one question to multiple local AI coding CLIs **in parallel** and collect their answers. MOA detects which agent CLIs you have installed (Claude Code, Codex, agy, opencode), fans your prompt out to them, and streams each answer back the moment that agent finishes. Or run `moa distill` to have a strong aggregator merge those answers into a single unified response, or `moa debate` to have them critique each other across rounds while a moderator checks for convergence and writes the verdict.
 
 It's a drop-in, batteries-included replacement for hand-rolling parallel `claude -p` / `codex exec` / `opencode run` calls (or a "peer review" agent skill): one command, clean attributed output, made to be called by a human **or** by another agent.
 
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ MOA has three prompt verbs that share the same selection/output options:
 
 - **`moa ask PROMPT`** - council / peer review: N agents answer the same prompt in parallel; every answer is returned with attribution, streamed as it lands.
 - **`moa distill PROMPT`** - synthesis: run the council, then one strong aggregator merges the answers into a single unified response.
-- **`moa debate PROMPT`** - sequential debate: two debaters answer and adversarially critique each other across rounds, then a separate neutral judge writes the final verdict. The costliest mode; read the caveats below before reaching for it.
+- **`moa debate PROMPT`** - sequential debate: two debaters answer and adversarially critique each other across rounds, with a moderator that checks for convergence between rounds and writes the final verdict. The costliest mode; read the caveats below before reaching for it.
 
 ```bash
 moa doctor                                  # show installed CLIs and their default models
@@ -76,12 +76,12 @@ moa ask --json "..."                        # machine-readable JSONL (for agents
 git diff | moa ask -f - "Review this diff." # read the prompt from stdin
 moa distill "Design a rate limiter."        # council, then merge into one answer
 moa distill -s codex "..."                  # pick who distills (auto | random | provider)
-moa debate "Is this race condition real?"   # 2 debaters + a judge (default n=3)
+moa debate "Is this race condition real?"   # 2 debaters; the first also moderates (default 2 agents)
 moa debate -r 3 "..."                        # more rounds (default 2, hard max 4)
-moa debate -j claude "..."                   # pin who judges (must not be a debater)
+moa debate --moderator agy "..."             # pin a neutral moderator (a non-debater)
 ```
 
-The shared options (`-n/--num`, `-p/--provider`, `-x/--exclude`, `-m/--model`, `-t/--timeout`, `-f/--file`, `--json`, `--yolo`) work identically on all three verbs. `distill` adds `-s/--synthesizer`; `debate` adds `-r/--rounds` and `-j/--judge`.
+The shared options (`-n/--num`, `-p/--provider`, `-x/--exclude`, `-m/--model`, `-t/--timeout`, `-f/--file`, `--json`, `--yolo`) work identically on all three verbs. `distill` adds `-s/--synthesizer`; `debate` adds `-r/--rounds` and `--moderator`.
 
 ### Read-only by default
 
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ moa config unset num                  # remove a key
 moa config unset model claude         # remove one [models] entry
 ```
 
-The synthesizer default is persistable too (e.g. `moa config set synthesizer codex`); `debate`'s `-r/--rounds` and `-j/--judge` are not persisted. CLI `-m` overrides win per-provider over the config `[models]` table.
+The role defaults are persistable too: the distill `synthesizer` and the debate `moderator` (e.g. `moa config set synthesizer codex`, `moa config set moderator agy`). `debate`'s `-r/--rounds` is not persisted. CLI `-m` overrides win per-provider over the config `[models]` table.
 
 ### Output
 
@@ -210,23 +210,23 @@ The synthesizer default is persistable too (e.g. `moa config set synthesizer cod
 
 The aggregator prompt is adapted from the Mixture-of-Agents "Aggregate-and-Synthesize" prompt (Wang et al. 2024): it tells the aggregator to critically evaluate the inputs (some may be biased or incorrect) and not to simply replicate them but offer a refined, accurate, comprehensive reply.
 
-### `moa debate` (sequential debate + neutral judge)
+### `moa debate` (sequential debate + moderator)
 
-`debate` is the opt-in, highest-cost mode. Instead of fanning out in parallel, it runs a sequential, adversarial exchange and then asks a **separate neutral judge** to write the final answer.
+`debate` is the opt-in, highest-cost mode. Instead of fanning out in parallel, it runs a sequential, adversarial exchange overseen by a **moderator** that checks for convergence between rounds and writes the final answer.
 
-**Roles.** By default the top **2** selected agents are the debaters and the **3rd** is the judge - so the default `-n 3` maps to *2 debaters + 1 judge*. Pin a specific judge with `-j/--judge PROVIDER`; the judge must be one of the selected agents and must **not** also be a debater. Debate needs at least 2 debaters and 1 distinct judge, so it needs at least 3 agents; with fewer it exits with a clear message rather than silently degrading.
+**Roles.** The top **2** selected agents are the debaters. The **moderator** runs the per-round convergence check and writes the verdict; by default it is the top-priority selected agent (so the default 2-agent debate has agent #1 also moderate). Debate only needs **2 agents**; with fewer it exits cleanly rather than silently degrading. For a **neutral** moderator that doesn't also debate, select a third agent and pin it: `moa debate -n 3 --moderator <provider>` (the moderator must be one of the selected agents). The moderator only ever sees the transcript **anonymized + shuffled**, so even when it is itself a debater it can't favour its own answer.
 
 **Rounds.** `-r/--rounds` defaults to **2** (gains plateau around 2-3 rounds while token cost grows multiplicatively) and is hard-capped at **4** - higher values are clamped with a warning on stderr.
 
-**The loop.** Round 1: debater A answers cold; debater B sees A's answer with an adversarial-stance instruction ("identify errors/weaknesses before giving your own answer; do not agree merely to reach consensus"). Each later round, every debater sees the other's latest answer and responds in the same spirit. If every debater signals it has *no substantive change* (it may open its reply with `NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE`), the debate stops early before the cap.
+**The loop.** Round 1: debater A answers cold; debater B sees A's answer with an adversarial-stance instruction ("identify errors/weaknesses before giving your own answer; do not agree merely to reach consensus"). Each later round, every debater sees the other's latest answer and responds in the same spirit. After each non-final round the **moderator** reads the debaters' latest answers and replies `DONE` (they've converged or fully aired their disagreement) or `CONTINUE`; a `DONE` stops the debate before the cap.
 
-**The judge.** A model that is **not** a debater reads the full transcript - presented **anonymized and order-shuffled** (a model is judging, so brand/position bias is killed) - and writes the final answer. Its prompt instructs it to weigh correctness and evidence **above** confidence and fluency. The judge's verdict is the final block (`──── verdict · judge <name> · ... ────`).
+**The verdict.** The moderator reads the full transcript - presented **anonymized and order-shuffled** (so brand/position bias is killed, even when the moderator was a debater) - and writes the final answer. Its prompt instructs it to weigh correctness and evidence **above** confidence and fluency. The verdict is the final block (`──── verdict · moderator <name> · ... ────`).
 
-**Streaming/output.** Each debater's turn streams as it completes (`──── round N · <provider> · ... ────`), then the judge's verdict last. `--json` emits a `{"type": "debate_turn", "round": N, ...}` record per turn plus a final `{"type": "verdict", ...}` record.
+**Streaming/output.** Each debater's turn streams as it completes (`──── round N · <provider> · ... ────`), then the moderator's verdict last. `--json` emits a `{"type": "debate_turn", "round": N, ...}` record per turn plus a final `{"type": "verdict", "moderator": "<name>", ...}` record.
 
-**Safety.** Debaters and the judge run in the same read-only (or `--yolo`) mode as the other verbs - there is no permission bypass. agy's partial-sandbox caveat (shell only; it can still edit files) applies here too.
+**Safety.** Debaters and the moderator run in the same read-only (or `--yolo`) mode as the other verbs - there is no permission bypass. agy's partial-sandbox caveat (shell only; it can still edit files) applies here too.
 
-> **Caveat - use sparingly.** Debate is the costliest mode (roughly `debaters x rounds + 1` model calls) **and the least reliably beneficial.** The research is mixed-to-negative: multi-agent debate can converge on a *wrong* answer through conformity, a confident-but-incorrect debater can win on persuasiveness over correctness, and more rounds can entrench an error rather than fix it. The separate neutral judge and the adversarial-stance prompt are there to fight these failure modes, but they do not eliminate them. For most questions, `ask` or `distill` is the better default; reach for `debate` when you specifically want to surface and stress-test disagreement. (See *Can LLM Agents Really Debate?* arXiv:2511.07784, *Talk Isn't Always Cheap* arXiv:2509.05396, and the conformity/position-bias work cited in the design notes.)
+> **Caveat - use sparingly.** Debate is the costliest mode (roughly `debaters × rounds` calls, plus a moderator check per round and the verdict) **and the least reliably beneficial.** The research is mixed-to-negative: multi-agent debate can converge on a *wrong* answer through conformity, a confident-but-incorrect debater can win on persuasiveness over correctness, and more rounds can entrench an error rather than fix it. The moderator and the adversarial-stance prompt are there to fight these failure modes, but they do not eliminate them. For most questions, `ask` or `distill` is the better default; reach for `debate` when you specifically want to surface and stress-test disagreement. (See *Can LLM Agents Really Debate?* arXiv:2511.07784, *Talk Isn't Always Cheap* arXiv:2509.05396, and the conformity/position-bias work cited in the design notes.)
 
 ### Attribution policy
 

{moa_cli-0.2.2 → moa_cli-0.3.0}/pyproject.toml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 [project]
 name = "moa-cli"
-version = "0.2.2"
+version = "0.3.0"
 description = "Ask one question to multiple local AI coding CLIs in parallel and collect their answers."
 readme = "README.md"
 authors = [

{moa_cli-0.2.2 → moa_cli-0.3.0}/src/moa_cli/__init__.py

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 """MOA CLI package."""
 
-__version__ = "0.2.2"
+__version__ = "0.3.0"

{moa_cli-0.2.2 → moa_cli-0.3.0}/src/moa_cli/cli.py

@@ -377,11 +377,12 @@ def build_synthesis_prompt(
 
 
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
-# Debate: sequential adversarial rounds, then one neutral judge writes the
-# verdict from the (anonymized + shuffled) full transcript. The literature is
-# clear that debate is the costliest and least reliably-beneficial mode: it can
-# converge on a wrong answer (conformity), so the judge is a separate model and
-# its prompt weighs correctness/evidence over confidence and fluency.
+# Debate: sequential adversarial rounds, with a moderator that checks for
+# convergence after each round and then writes the verdict from the (anonymized
+# + shuffled) full transcript. The literature is clear that debate is the
+# costliest and least reliably-beneficial mode: it can converge on a wrong answer
+# (conformity), so the verdict prompt weighs correctness/evidence over confidence
+# and fluency, and the anonymization holds even when the moderator also debated.
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
 
 ROUNDS_MAX = 4
@@ -393,23 +394,16 @@ ADVERSARIAL_INSTRUCTION = """Before giving your own answer, critically examine t
 other participant's answer above: identify any errors, weaknesses, unsupported claims, or \
 gaps in reasoning. Do NOT agree merely to reach consensus - only concede a point if it is \
 genuinely correct. Then give your own best, complete answer to the original question, \
-incorporating any valid corrections.
+incorporating any valid corrections."""
 
-If, after this scrutiny, you have no substantive change to your previous answer and you agree \
-with the other participant, say so explicitly by starting your reply with the line \
-"NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE" - this lets the debate stop early."""
-
-# Phrase a debater emits when it has nothing substantive to add. When all active
-# debaters in a round signal this, the debate stops before the round cap.
-CONVERGENCE_MARKER = "NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE"
-
-# The neutral judge reads the full transcript (anonymized + shuffled) and writes
-# the final answer. It must weigh correctness/evidence over confidence/fluency -
-# this is where conformity-to-a-wrong-answer is most dangerous, so the judge
-# never just echoes the most fluent or most confident debater.
-JUDGE_PROMPT = """You are a neutral judge. Below is a transcript of a debate between AI coding \
-assistants who answered the user's question and then critiqued each other's answers across \
-several rounds. The participants are anonymized and presented in arbitrary order.
+# The moderator reads the full transcript (anonymized + shuffled) and writes the
+# final answer. It must weigh correctness/evidence over confidence/fluency - this
+# is where conformity-to-a-wrong-answer is most dangerous, so it never just echoes
+# the most fluent or most confident debater.
+MODERATOR_VERDICT_PROMPT = """You are the moderator of this debate. Below is a transcript of a \
+debate between AI coding assistants who answered the user's question and then critiqued each \
+other's answers across several rounds. The participants are anonymized and presented in \
+arbitrary order.
 
 Your task is to read the full debate and write the single best, final answer to the user's \
 question. Weigh correctness and the strength of evidence and reasoning ABOVE confidence, \
@@ -424,43 +418,50 @@ best possible answer.
 asserted.
 - Do not invent information that the debate does not support."""
 
+# After each non-final round the moderator decides whether another round would
+# materially help. It replies with a single leading word the caller branches on.
+CONVERGENCE_DONE = "DONE"
+MODERATOR_CONVERGENCE_PROMPT = """You are the moderator of this debate. Below are the debaters' \
+latest answers to the user's question, anonymized. Decide whether they have converged on an \
+answer, or at least fully aired and clarified their disagreement, so that another round would \
+add nothing material.
+
+Reply with EXACTLY one word on the first line: DONE if the debate should stop now, or CONTINUE \
+if another round would materially improve the final answer. Add nothing else."""
+
 
 def assign_debate_roles(
-    selected: list[Provider], judge: str | None
+    selected: list[Provider], moderator: str | None
 ) -> tuple[list[Provider], Provider]:
-    """Split the selected providers into (debaters, judge).
-
-    Default: the top 2 selected providers debate and the next one judges (so the
-    default n=3 maps to 2 debaters + 1 judge). `judge` (from -j/--judge) pins the
-    judge to a named provider, which must be one of the selected providers and
-    must NOT also be a debater. Requires at least 2 debaters and 1 distinct judge;
-    raises ValueError otherwise (the caller turns this into a clean exit - debate
-    never silently degrades to fewer participants).
+    """Split the selected providers into (debaters, moderator).
+
+    The top 2 selected providers debate. The moderator runs the per-round
+    convergence check and writes the final verdict; it MAY be one of the debaters.
+    `moderator` is "auto" (or None) -> the top-priority selected provider (so the
+    default 2-agent debate has agent #1 also moderate), or a provider name that
+    must be among the selected providers (pin a non-debating 3rd for a neutral
+    moderator). Requires at least 2 selected providers; raises ValueError
+    otherwise (the caller turns this into a clean exit - debate never silently
+    degrades).
     """
-    if judge is not None:
-        names = [p.name for p in selected]
-        if judge not in PROVIDERS:
-            raise ValueError(f"Unknown judge: {judge}")
-        if judge not in names:
-            raise ValueError(
-                f"Judge {judge!r} is not among the selected providers ({', '.join(names)}). "
-                f"Pin it with -p {judge} or widen the selection."
-            )
-        judge_provider = next(p for p in selected if p.name == judge)
-        debaters = [p for p in selected if p.name != judge]
-        if len(debaters) < 2:
-            raise ValueError(
-                f"debate needs at least 2 debaters plus the judge ({judge}); only "
-                f"{len(debaters)} non-judge provider(s) available. Increase -n or -p."
-            )
-        return debaters, judge_provider
-
-    if len(selected) < 3:
+    if len(selected) < 2:
+        raise ValueError(
+            f"debate needs at least 2 providers (2 debaters); only {len(selected)} available. "
+            f"Increase -n, pin more with -p, or install more agents."
+        )
+    debaters = selected[:2]
+    if moderator in (None, "auto"):
+        return debaters, selected[0]
+
+    names = [p.name for p in selected]
+    if moderator not in PROVIDERS:
+        raise ValueError(f"Unknown moderator: {moderator}")
+    if moderator not in names:
         raise ValueError(
-            f"debate needs at least 3 providers (2 debaters + 1 neutral judge); "
-            f"only {len(selected)} available. Increase -n, pin more with -p, or install more agents."
+            f"Moderator {moderator!r} is not among the selected providers ({', '.join(names)}). "
+            f"Pin it with -p {moderator} or widen the selection."
         )
-    return selected[:2], selected[2]
+    return debaters, next(p for p in selected if p.name == moderator)
 
 
 def clamp_rounds(rounds: int) -> tuple[int, str | None]:
@@ -496,18 +497,19 @@ def build_debate_turn_prompt(
     )
 
 
-def build_judge_prompt(
+def build_verdict_prompt(
     question: str,
     transcript: list[RunResult],
     rng: random.Random | None = None,
 ) -> tuple[str, dict[str, str]]:
-    """Build the judge prompt from the debate transcript, anonymized + shuffled.
-
-    The transcript is the per-turn RunResults; the judge sees only the final
-    answer text of each turn, relabelled "Participant 1/2/.." in shuffled order
-    (a model is judging, so brand/position bias is killed per the research). The
-    label_map maps each label back to the real provider for the caller, though
-    debate does not reveal it in the verdict.
+    """Build the moderator's final-verdict prompt from the transcript, anonymized
+    + shuffled.
+
+    The transcript is the per-turn RunResults; the moderator sees only the final
+    answer text of each turn, relabelled "Participant 1/2/.." in shuffled order so
+    brand/position bias is killed - this matters even when the moderator is itself
+    a debater, since it can't tell which answer is its own. The label_map maps each
+    label back to the real provider for the caller, though debate never reveals it.
     """
     turns = [r for r in transcript if r.status == "ok"]
     shuffled = list(turns)
@@ -519,13 +521,27 @@ def build_judge_prompt(
         sections.append(f"### {label}\n\n{result.stdout.strip()}")
         label_map[label] = result.provider
     prompt = (
-        f"{JUDGE_PROMPT}\n\n"
+        f"{MODERATOR_VERDICT_PROMPT}\n\n"
         f"## User question\n\n{question}\n\n"
         f"## Debate transcript\n\n" + "\n\n".join(sections) + "\n\n## Your final answer\n"
     )
     return prompt, label_map
 
 
+def build_convergence_prompt(question: str, latest: list[RunResult]) -> str:
+    """The moderator's per-round convergence check. `latest` is the debaters' most
+    recent answers, anonymized so the moderator judges substance over brand. The
+    expected reply starts with DONE (stop) or CONTINUE (another round helps)."""
+    answers = "\n\n".join(
+        f"### Participant {i + 1}\n\n{r.stdout.strip()}" for i, r in enumerate(latest)
+    )
+    return (
+        f"{MODERATOR_CONVERGENCE_PROMPT}\n\n"
+        f"## User question\n\n{question}\n\n"
+        f"## The debaters' latest answers\n\n{answers}\n\n## Your decision\n"
+    )
+
+
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
 # Render: stdout carries content (Markdown or JSONL); stderr carries progress.
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
@@ -627,10 +643,10 @@ def render_debate_turn_block(result: RunResult, round_num: int, plain: bool | No
     return _render(label, result, plain)
 
 
-def render_judge_block(result: RunResult, judge: str, plain: bool | None = None) -> str:
+def render_verdict_block(result: RunResult, moderator: str, plain: bool | None = None) -> str:
     if plain is None:
         plain = _plain_output()
-    label = f"verdict · judge {judge} · {_status_label(result.status)} · {result.elapsed:.1f}s"
+    label = f"verdict · moderator {moderator} · {_status_label(result.status)} · {result.elapsed:.1f}s"
     return _render(label, result, plain)
 
 
@@ -648,10 +664,10 @@ def debate_turn_record(result: RunResult, round_num: int) -> dict:
     }
 
 
-def judge_record(result: RunResult, judge: str) -> dict:
+def verdict_record(result: RunResult, moderator: str) -> dict:
     return {
         "type": "verdict",
-        "judge": judge,
+        "moderator": moderator,
         "status": result.status,
         "elapsed": round(result.elapsed, 3),
         "text": result.stdout,
@@ -672,12 +688,21 @@ def judge_record(result: RunResult, judge: str) -> dict:
 
 # Scalar config keys and the type each maps to. `exclude` (list[str]) and the
 # `[models]` table are handled separately because they aren't plain scalars.
-_CONFIG_SCALARS: dict[str, type] = {"num": int, "timeout": float, "synthesizer": str}
+_CONFIG_SCALARS: dict[str, type] = {"num": int, "timeout": float, "synthesizer": str, "moderator": str}
 _CONFIG_KEYS: tuple[str, ...] = (*_CONFIG_SCALARS, "exclude", "models")
 # Synthesizer accepts the special modes plus any known provider name.
 _SYNTHESIZER_MODES: tuple[str, ...] = ("auto", "first", "random")
+# Moderator accepts "auto" (the top-priority selected agent) or a provider name.
+_MODERATOR_MODES: tuple[str, ...] = ("auto",)
 # The built-in defaults, shown by `config show` when a key isn't in the file.
-_CONFIG_DEFAULTS: dict = {"num": 3, "timeout": 180.0, "synthesizer": "auto", "exclude": [], "models": {}}
+_CONFIG_DEFAULTS: dict = {
+    "num": 3,
+    "timeout": 180.0,
+    "synthesizer": "auto",
+    "moderator": "auto",
+    "exclude": [],
+    "models": {},
+}
 
 
 def config_dir() -> Path:
@@ -709,6 +734,9 @@ def _validate_scalar(key: str, value) -> None:
     if key == "synthesizer" and value not in (*_SYNTHESIZER_MODES, *PROVIDERS):
         allowed = ", ".join((*_SYNTHESIZER_MODES, *PROVIDERS))
         raise ValueError(f"synthesizer must be one of: {allowed}.")
+    if key == "moderator" and value not in (*_MODERATOR_MODES, *PROVIDERS):
+        allowed = ", ".join((*_MODERATOR_MODES, *PROVIDERS))
+        raise ValueError(f"moderator must be one of: {allowed}.")
 
 
 def load_config() -> dict:
@@ -786,6 +814,8 @@ def serialize_config(config: dict) -> str:
         lines.append(f"timeout = {int(timeout) if timeout.is_integer() else timeout!r}")
     if "synthesizer" in config:
         lines.append(f"synthesizer = {_toml_str(config['synthesizer'])}")
+    if "moderator" in config:
+        lines.append(f"moderator = {_toml_str(config['moderator'])}")
     if "exclude" in config:
         items = ", ".join(_toml_str(v) for v in config["exclude"])
         lines.append(f"exclude = [{items}]")
@@ -973,6 +1003,7 @@ def resolve_run(
     timeout: float | None,
     json_output: bool,
     yolo: bool,
+    default_num: int = 3,
 ) -> RunConfig:
     """Resolve the shared options into a RunConfig, emitting the selection note.
 
@@ -981,7 +1012,9 @@ def resolve_run(
     flag), parse model overrides, select providers, and print the stderr
     selection note (including agy's honest partial-protection note). Every verb
     picks up config defaults identically because the merge lives only here.
-    Raises typer.BadParameter on bad input and typer.Exit(1) when nothing runs.
+    `default_num` is the built-in fallback when neither flag nor config sets num
+    (debate passes 2, since it only needs 2 agents). Raises typer.BadParameter on
+    bad input and typer.Exit(1) when nothing runs.
     """
     prompt_text = _read_prompt(prompt, file)
     if not prompt_text:
@@ -993,7 +1026,7 @@ def resolve_run(
     except ValueError as exc:
         raise typer.BadParameter(f"{config_path()}: {exc}") from exc
 
-    num = resolve_option(num, "num", config, 3)
+    num = resolve_option(num, "num", config, default_num)
     timeout = resolve_option(timeout, "timeout", config, 180.0)
     # Repeatable flags are an empty list when omitted, not None, so treat empty
     # as "fall back to config" for exclude.
@@ -1131,9 +1164,12 @@ def _run_synthesis(
 RoundsOpt = Annotated[
     int, typer.Option("--rounds", "-r", help=f"Debate rounds (default 2, hard max {ROUNDS_MAX}).")
 ]
-JudgeOpt = Annotated[
+ModeratorOpt = Annotated[
     str | None,
-    typer.Option("--judge", "-j", help="Provider that judges (must not be a debater)."),
+    typer.Option(
+        "--moderator", "-j",
+        help="Moderator that checks convergence and writes the verdict: auto | a provider.",
+    ),
 ]
 
 
@@ -1147,60 +1183,80 @@ def debate(
     file: FileOpt = None,
     timeout: TimeoutOpt = None,
     rounds: RoundsOpt = 2,
-    judge: JudgeOpt = None,
+    moderator: ModeratorOpt = None,
     json_output: JsonOpt = False,
     yolo: YoloOpt = False,
 ) -> None:
-    """Debate: debaters answer and critique each other across rounds; a neutral judge gives the verdict."""
-    cfg = resolve_run(prompt, file, num, provider, exclude, model, timeout, json_output, yolo)
+    """Debate: two debaters answer and critique each other across rounds; a moderator checks convergence and writes the verdict."""
+    # Debate only needs 2 agents (the moderator may also be a debater), so its
+    # built-in default selection is 2, not the usual 3.
+    cfg = resolve_run(
+        prompt, file, num, provider, exclude, model, timeout, json_output, yolo, default_num=2
+    )
+
+    # moderator is verb-specific (like distill's synthesizer) but persistable, so
+    # it merges through the same precedence: CLI flag > config file > built-in.
+    moderator = resolve_option(moderator, "moderator", _read_config_or_empty(), "auto")
 
     rounds, warning = clamp_rounds(rounds)
     if warning:
         _note(warning)
 
     try:
-        debaters, judge_provider = assign_debate_roles(cfg.selected, judge)
+        debaters, moderator_provider = assign_debate_roles(cfg.selected, moderator)
     except ValueError as exc:
         _note(f"debate: {exc}")
         raise typer.Exit(code=1) from exc
 
     _note(
-        f"Debating: {', '.join(p.name for p in debaters)} over {rounds} round(s), "
-        f"judge {judge_provider.name}. Debate is the costliest mode "
-        f"(~{len(debaters) * rounds + 1} model calls) and can converge on a wrong answer."
+        f"Debating: {', '.join(p.name for p in debaters)} over up to {rounds} round(s), "
+        f"moderator {moderator_provider.name}. Debate is the costliest mode and can "
+        f"converge on a wrong answer."
     )
 
-    transcript = asyncio.run(_run_debate(cfg, debaters, judge_provider, rounds))
+    transcript = asyncio.run(_run_debate(cfg, debaters, moderator_provider, rounds))
     if not any(r.status == "ok" for r in transcript):
         raise typer.Exit(code=1)
 
 
-def _signals_convergence(result: RunResult) -> bool:
-    """A debater concedes when its answer opens with the convergence marker."""
-    return result.status == "ok" and result.stdout.strip().upper().startswith(CONVERGENCE_MARKER)
+async def _moderator_signals_done(
+    cfg: RunConfig, moderator: Provider, latest_ok: list[RunResult], round_num: int
+) -> bool:
+    """Ask the moderator whether the debate has converged. Returns True (stop)
+    only on a clean DONE reply; a failed or CONTINUE check keeps debating."""
+    prompt = build_convergence_prompt(cfg.prompt, latest_ok)
+    _note(f"Round {round_num}: moderator {moderator.name} checking for convergence...")
+    result = await run_provider(
+        moderator, prompt, cfg.timeout, cfg.models.get(moderator.name), cfg.yolo
+    )
+    done = result.status == "ok" and result.stdout.strip().upper().startswith(CONVERGENCE_DONE)
+    if done:
+        _note(f"Moderator {moderator.name}: converged; stopping after round {round_num}.")
+    return done
 
 
 async def _run_debate(
     cfg: RunConfig,
     debaters: list[Provider],
-    judge: Provider,
+    moderator: Provider,
     rounds: int,
 ) -> list[RunResult]:
-    """Run the sequential debate, then the judge. Returns the full transcript.
-
-    Each debater keeps its latest answer in `latest`. A turn shows the debater
-    the OTHER debaters' latest answers (anonymized) plus the adversarial
-    instruction; the very first turn (no priors yet) is a cold answer. Turns
-    stream as they complete (stderr progress + stdout/JSON block). If every
-    active debater signals "no substantive change" in a round, the debate stops
-    before the cap. The judge then reads the blind+shuffled transcript and writes
-    the verdict last.
+    """Run the sequential debate, then the moderator's verdict. Returns the full
+    transcript.
+
+    Each debater keeps its latest answer in `latest`. A turn shows the debater the
+    OTHER debaters' latest answers (anonymized) plus the adversarial instruction;
+    the very first turn (no priors yet) is a cold answer. Turns stream as they
+    complete (stderr progress + stdout/JSON block). After each non-final round the
+    moderator decides whether the debate has converged and can stop early. The
+    moderator then reads the blind+shuffled transcript and writes the verdict last
+    (it may itself be a debater - the anonymization stops it favouring its own
+    answer).
     """
     transcript: list[RunResult] = []
     latest: dict[str, RunResult] = {}
 
     for round_num in range(1, rounds + 1):
-        converged_this_round = True
         for debater in debaters:
             prior = [
                 ("the other participant", latest[other.name].stdout)
@@ -1219,34 +1275,36 @@ async def _run_debate(
                 if cfg.json_output
                 else render_debate_turn_block(result, round_num)
             )
-            # A debater that errors out is not "converged"; only an explicit
-            # no-change signal counts toward an early stop.
-            if not _signals_convergence(result):
-                converged_this_round = False
 
-        # Round 1 always has at least one cold answer (no prior to converge on),
-        # so early-stop is only meaningful from round 2 onward.
-        if round_num >= 2 and converged_this_round:
-            _note(f"Debate converged after round {round_num} (no substantive changes); stopping early.")
-            break
+        # After each non-final round, let the moderator stop early if the debaters
+        # have converged. Needs both debaters' latest answers to compare.
+        if round_num < rounds:
+            latest_ok = [
+                latest[d.name] for d in debaters
+                if d.name in latest and latest[d.name].status == "ok"
+            ]
+            if len(latest_ok) >= 2 and await _moderator_signals_done(
+                cfg, moderator, latest_ok, round_num
+            ):
+                break
 
     if not any(r.status == "ok" for r in transcript):
-        _note("Debate produced no usable answers; skipping judge.")
+        _note("Debate produced no usable answers; skipping the moderator verdict.")
         return transcript
 
-    # The judge always sees the transcript anonymized + shuffled (a model is
-    # judging; per item 002 there is no toggle). It runs in the same read-only /
-    # --yolo mode as the debaters - no permission bypass.
-    judge_prompt, _label_map = build_judge_prompt(cfg.prompt, transcript)
-    _note(f"Judging with {judge.name}...")
+    # The moderator always sees the transcript anonymized + shuffled (a model is
+    # judging; no toggle). It runs in the same read-only / --yolo mode as the
+    # debaters - no permission bypass.
+    verdict_prompt, _label_map = build_verdict_prompt(cfg.prompt, transcript)
+    _note(f"Moderator {moderator.name} writing the final answer...")
     verdict = await run_provider(
-        judge, judge_prompt, cfg.timeout, cfg.models.get(judge.name), cfg.yolo
+        moderator, verdict_prompt, cfg.timeout, cfg.models.get(moderator.name), cfg.yolo
     )
     transcript.append(verdict)
     _emit(
-        json.dumps(judge_record(verdict, judge.name))
+        json.dumps(verdict_record(verdict, moderator.name))
         if cfg.json_output
-        else render_judge_block(verdict, judge.name)
+        else render_verdict_block(verdict, moderator.name)
     )
     return transcript
 
@@ -1313,7 +1371,7 @@ def config_show() -> None:
 
 @config_app.command("set")
 def config_set(
-    key: Annotated[str, typer.Argument(help="Config key: num | timeout | synthesizer | exclude | model.")],
+    key: Annotated[str, typer.Argument(help="Config key: num | timeout | synthesizer | moderator | exclude | model.")],
     value: Annotated[str, typer.Argument(help="Value. For models: PROVIDER=MODEL. For exclude: comma-separated names.")],
 ) -> None:
     """Write a value to the config file, creating the dir/file if missing."""
@@ -1346,7 +1404,7 @@ def config_set(
             raise typer.BadParameter(str(exc)) from exc
         config[key] = coerced
     else:
-        known = "num, timeout, synthesizer, exclude, model"
+        known = "num, timeout, synthesizer, moderator, exclude, model"
         raise typer.BadParameter(f"Unknown config key: {key!r}. Known: {known}.")
 
     write_config(config)