# Resolve Strategic Disagreements

Teams often stall when two valid positions conflict. This skill turns disagreement into a structured thesis, antithesis, and synthesis with explicit trade-offs.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add bellabe/reasoning-dialectical
```

## Metadata

- - Slug: bellabe-reasoning-dialectical
- - Version: 1.0.0
- - Author: BellaBe
- - GitHub username: BellaBe
- - License: MIT
- - Repository: https://github.com/BellaBe/lean-os/tree/main/.claude/skills/reasoning-dialectical
- - Ref: main
- - Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- - Risk level: low
- - Quality score: 77
- - Quality tier: bronze
- - Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/bellabe-reasoning-dialectical
- - Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/bellabe-reasoning-dialectical/manifest

## Capabilities

- Structures a first position as a thesis with stakeholder, evidence, risks, and benefits.
- Builds a strong antithesis that challenges assumptions and represents an opposing stakeholder.
- Creates an integrated synthesis using integration, sequencing, segmentation, reframing, or transcendence.
- Documents trade-offs, mitigations, stakeholder acceptance, actions, metrics, and review timing.
- Applies quality gates to avoid weak opposition, false compromise, and abstract conclusions.

## Use Cases

- Align Product and Sales Priorities: Compare revenue needs against product learning needs, then produce an integrated roadmap decision.
- Resolve Technical Investment Debates: Balance platform work against feature delivery with explicit trade-offs and measurable next steps.
- Prepare Executive Decision Briefs: Turn competing strategic options into a clear synthesis for leadership review.

## Prompt Templates

### Basic Position Synthesis

```
Use dialectical reasoning to compare these two positions: [position A] and [position B]. Identify the thesis, antithesis, synthesis, trade-offs, and next actions.
```

### Stakeholder Trade-Off Review

```
Analyze this disagreement with the dialectical framework. For each stakeholder, state their concern, evidence, incentives, risks, and what they must accept in the synthesis.
```

### Strategic Reframing

```
Use dialectical reasoning to test whether this is a false dichotomy: [decision context]. Reframe the tension if needed and propose an integrated position.
```

### Implementation-Ready Synthesis

```
Create a full dialectical analysis for [decision]. Include steel-manned thesis and antithesis, synthesis type, explicit losses, mitigations, stakeholder agreement, actions, metrics, and review date.
```

## Limitations

- It does not verify the truth of evidence supplied by the user.
- It is less useful when there is no genuine tension between positions.
- It does not replace stakeholder approval or formal governance.
- It may need another reasoning mode for root-cause analysis or historical evaluation.

## Best Practices

- Provide real stakeholder names, incentives, and evidence before asking for synthesis.
- Ask the model to steel-man both sides before choosing a resolution type.
- Require explicit trade-offs, owners, metrics, and a review date.

## Anti Patterns

- Do not use it to make one side win without addressing the other concern.
- Do not treat a vague compromise as a completed synthesis.
- Do not skip evidence quality when the decision depends on factual claims.

## Security Audit

- - Safe to publish: true
- - Audited at: 2026-06-28T15:36:54.216\+00:00
- - Summary: Static analysis reported command execution, weak cryptography, and reconnaissance patterns, but review found these are false positives from Markdown code fences and ordinary prose in SKILL.md. No executable scripts, shell commands, network access, environment access, filesystem mutation, or prompt injection attempts were found.

## Stats

- - Views: 213
- - Downloads: 5
- - Favorites: 0
- - Popularity score: 0