analyze

dev.gemot/gemot · Verify this server

Analyze disagreements and find common ground. Actions: - run: Trigger analysis — extracts cruxes, clusters, consensus (deliberation_id; optional: model) - get_result: Get analysis result (deliberation_id; optional: round). While the analysis is running, returns {status:"pending", analysis_status: <stage>} with the current pipeline stage (taxonomy / extracting / crux_detection / clustering) so a single poll loop on this tool replaces calling deliberation action:get for progress. - cancel: Cancel in-progress analysis (deliberation_id) - propose_compromise: Generate a compromise statement (deliberation_id; optional: model) - reframe: Restate a position emphasizing common ground (deliberation_id, position_id; optional: model) - challenge: Challenge an analysis result (deliberation_id, agent_id, reason) - dispute_crux: Dispute a crux classification (deliberation_id, agent_id, crux_claim, correction) - expert_panel: Run an adversarial expert panel review (document; optional: topic, source_type, depth, experts, group_id, model). Creates a deliberation, submits expert critiques, triggers analysis. Returns deliberation_id immediately — poll with deliberation action:get for status, then analyze action:get_result. depth: "quick" (~2 min, 3 experts, tight taxonomy) or "thorough" (~7 min, 5 experts, full taxonomy). source_type selects specialized experts: "code_review", "architecture", "experiment", "proposal". - follow_up: Submit follow-up expert positions responding to round 1 cruxes, then trigger round 2 analysis (deliberation_id; optional: model). Experts review the cruxes and consensus, flag misclassifications, and identify missed issues. Requires round 1 to be complete.