PluginBench
Skill
Pass
Audit score 90

arena

cursor/plugins

Spawn parallel candidates, pick the strongest base, graft best ideas from losers into it.

What is arena?

Arena runs N parallel attempts at the same task, then synthesizes the best result by selecting a strong base candidate and grafting superior ideas from the others into it. Use when a single initial attempt would lock in the wrong design direction and you need to explore multiple approaches before committing.

  • Spawn N parallel subagents on the same task with different models or strategies
  • Score each candidate against a concrete rubric before picking a base
  • Graft the strongest ideas from losing candidates into the base artifact
  • Generate a synthesis record documenting the base, grafts, rejections, and verification
  • Run cross-judge validation in parallel to confirm base selection
  • Verify the final synthesized artifact meets the original success criteria

How to install arena

npx skills add https://github.com/cursor/plugins --skill arena
Prerequisites
  • Access to multiple LLM models (claude-opus-5-5-max, gpt-5.6-sol-max, grok-4.7-xhigh-fast, or configured alternatives)
  • A well-defined task prompt and success rubric before starting
  • Git worktrees or /tmp space for candidate output isolation
Claude Code
Cursor
Windsurf
Cline

How to use arena

  1. 1.Frame the task: state the artifact, derive 3-6 concrete gradeable success criteria, pick N runners (models), assign output paths
  2. 2.Fan out: spawn all N subagents in parallel with the task, shared grounding, and instructions to produce artifact + rationale
  3. 3.Cross-judge: spawn one readonly judge subagent on a different model family to score candidates against the rubric
  4. 4.Pick a base: read every candidate end to end, score against rubric, compare with cross-judge verdict, record the pick and reason
  5. 5.Graft: walk each losing candidate, identify 1-2 key ideas worth porting, fold grafts in by hand to maintain coherence
  6. 6.Verify: test the synthesized artifact against the same rubric; if verification fails, reframe and re-run rather than patching

Use cases

Good for
  • Designing a complex API or data structure where the initial shape matters
  • Generating code for a non-trivial artifact where multiple architectural approaches exist
  • Creating content where style, tone, or structure could diverge significantly
  • Exploring multiple design directions before committing to one implementation
  • Synthesizing the best practices from competing solutions into a single coherent result
Who it's for
  • Developers building complex systems where design decisions are hard to reverse
  • Teams exploring multiple architectural approaches before committing
  • Anyone working on artifacts where the initial shape significantly impacts maintainability
  • Engineers who want to avoid locking in suboptimal designs early

arena FAQ

When should I use Arena instead of a single attempt?

Use Arena when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape—when design direction matters, multiple architectural approaches exist, or you need to explore alternatives before committing.

How many parallel candidates should I spawn?

Start with 3 candidates on different model families (claude, gpt, grok). Spawn more when the arena covers multiple design directions; use the same model N times when the work is generation-bound rather than judgment-sensitive.

What if candidates wildly diverge?

Divergence signals that Phase A (framing) was under-specified. Reframe the task with clearer criteria and re-run rather than averaging the divergence.

Do I have to graft ideas from every losing candidate?

No. The signal is usually 1-2 things per candidate worth porting. Fold grafts in by hand to maintain coherence; don't paste mechanically.

What if the cross-judge disagrees with my base pick?

Disagreement means one of you is biased or the rubric was ambiguous. Read both rationales and the candidates' reasoning before deciding; agreement on the base confirms the pick.

Full instructions (SKILL.md)

Source of truth, from cursor/plugins.


name: arena description: "Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft the strongest parts of the losers into it. Use for /arena, 'arena this', 'throw it in the arena', or when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape." disable-model-invocation: true

Arena

Fan out N parallel attempts at the same task. Read every candidate end to end. Pick the strongest as the base. Graft the best ideas from the others into it. Verify the synthesized result.

Start

Open a todolist with one entry per phase before launching anything.

  1. Frame
  2. Fan out
  3. Cross-judge
  4. Pick
  5. Graft
  6. Verify

Phase A: Frame

The N candidates will receive the same prompt, so the prompt is the contract.

  1. State the artifact each candidate is producing.
  2. Derive the rubric. State what success looks like for this task, then turn it into 3-6 concrete gradeable criteria. The rubric is the picker's tool in Phase D. Candidates only see the task.
  3. Pick the runners. Use the arena runners line in ~/.cursor/rules/pstack-models.mdc. If the rule or that line is missing, default to one each on claude-opus-5-5-max, gpt-5.6-sol-max, grok-4.7-xhigh-fast. An auto or inherit-parent entry in this line or the cross-judge line means the parent model, so omit model for it. If the Task tool rejects a configured entry, run that seat on its family's default and say so. Families go by prefix: claude-*, gpt-*, and grok-*. With no family match, use claude-opus-5-5-max. If it rejects a default, use the closest valid slug of the same family from its error message. Spawn more when the arena covers multiple design directions. Same model N times when the work is generation-bound rather than judgment-sensitive.
  4. Assign output paths. Each candidate writes to its own location (a git worktree where possible, otherwise /tmp/arena-<slug>/candidate-<n>/), per the separate-before-serializing-shared-state principle skill.

Phase B: Fan out

Spawn all N subagents in one message with run_in_background: true, each with the task, the path to the shared grounding, its own output path, and instructions to produce both the artifact and a short rationale.

Each rationale names the alternatives the candidate considered and what it rejected.

If a candidate fails to produce output, proceed with N-1 and note the dropout in the synthesis record.

Phase C: Cross-judge

After all Phase B candidates complete, choose one model from the arena cross-judge pool line in ~/.cursor/rules/pstack-models.mdc. If the rule or that line is missing, choose from claude-opus-5-5-max, gpt-5.6-sol-max, grok-4.7-xhigh-fast. Prefer a different model family from the parent's. Spawn one readonly judge subagent on that model. It sees the rubric and the candidates by path label, scores each criterion, and recommends a base with rationale. It runs in parallel with the parent's reading in Phase D, not with the candidates themselves. Don't spawn the judge while candidates are still writing.

Phase D: Pick a base

Read every candidate end to end before picking.

Score each candidate against the rubric criterion by criterion, not on holistic feel. Compare against the cross-judge. Agreement on the base confirms the pick. Disagreement means one of you is biased or the rubric was ambiguous. Read both rationales before deciding.

Pick the base on which candidate a future maintainer can extend most easily without breaking invariants. Prefer the cleaner boundary or smaller API when two feel tied, per the Laziness Protocol.

Record the pick and the reason in a short synthesis note alongside the base artifact, including the cross-judge's verdict.

Phase E: Graft

Walk each losing candidate once more and identify what is worth porting into the base. The signal is usually one or two things per candidate, not most of it.

Fold each graft in by hand, per the redesign-from-first-principles principle skill. Don't paste mechanically. The result has to remain coherent under one mental model.

Record what was grafted, from which candidate, and what was rejected and why.

When N candidates converge on the same shape, that is a strong agreement signal. Note the convergence in the record and ship the consensus shape. No graft is needed. When N candidates wildly diverge, Phase A was under-specified. Reframe and re-run rather than averaging the divergence.

Phase F: Verify

The synthesized artifact has to hold up under the same scrutiny as any other output, per the prove-it-works principle skill.

If verification surfaces a problem the arena did not catch, either Phase A was wrong (re-frame and re-run) or one candidate caught it and you missed the graft (go back to Phase E). Don't paper over.

Outputs

One synthesized artifact. One short synthesis note alongside, naming the base, the grafts (with source candidate), the rejections, the dropouts if any, and the verification result.