The hardware and bandwidth for this mirror is donated by dogado GmbH, the Webhosting and Full Service-Cloud Provider. Check out our Wordpress Tutorial.
If you wish to report a bug, or if you are interested in having us mirror your free-software or open-source project, please feel free to contact us at mirror[@]dogado.de.

Designed conversations: debates, focus groups, interviews, deliberations

Social research has spent a century refining conversation formats: the debate elicits the strongest case each side can muster; the focus group surfaces how opinions move in company; the interview goes deep on one person; the deliberation ends in a decision. LLMRagent ships each as a one-call preset. All four share a structure: agents built with agent(), a shared attributed transcript, and tidy returns. What you learn from one transfers to the others.

Throughout, one model and one cast:

library(LLMRagent)
cfg <- LLMR::llm_config("groq", "openai/gpt-oss-20b", temperature = 0.8)

Debate: the strongest case for each side

debate() runs opening statements, rounds of rebuttals, and closings, in fixed alternation; an optional judge returns a structured verdict. Because every statement is labeled with its phase, you can study how arguments develop: openings state values, rebuttals engage evidence, closings synthesize.

d <- debate(
  pro   = agent("Pro", cfg, persona = "You argue FOR the motion. Rigorous, concrete."),
  con   = agent("Con", cfg, persona = "You argue AGAINST the motion. Rigorous, concrete."),
  topic = "Algorithmic screening should be banned from hiring decisions.",
  rounds = 1,
  judge = agent("Judge", cfg, persona = "A strict, impartial debate judge.")
)
d                     # compact print: motion, statements, verdict
d$transcript          # tidy: turn, phase, speaker, text
d$verdict$reasoning

Focus group: opinions in company

focus_group() puts each question to every participant; speaking order rotates across questions so no one speaks first every round, and participants see the discussion so far, as in a real group. The moderator closes with a synthesis.

fg <- focus_group(
  moderator = agent("Mod", cfg, persona = "A neutral, probing focus-group moderator."),
  participants = list(
    agent("Maya", cfg, persona = "A 34-year-old nurse; prudent, skeptical of tech."),
    agent("Tom",  cfg, persona = "A 22-year-old gig worker; tech-optimistic."),
    agent("Ines", cfg, persona = "A 58-year-old teacher; worries about fairness.")
  ),
  topic = "Using AI screening in hiring",
  questions = c(
    "How would you feel if an algorithm screened your next job application?",
    "What, if anything, would make that acceptable to you?"
  )
)
fg$summary            # the moderator's synthesis
fg$transcript         # utterance-level frame for content analysis

Leave questions = NULL and the moderator drafts its own. This helps when piloting an instrument before you spend human-subjects time on it.

Interview: depth on one respondent

interview() works through a question list with one adaptive probe after each answer (the interviewer decides whether a probe is warranted; NONE suppresses it). The return is already the frame interview studies analyze: one row per question or probe.

iv <- interview(
  interviewer = agent("Interviewer", cfg,
                      persona = "A careful qualitative researcher."),
  respondent  = agent("Respondent", cfg,
                      persona = "A warehouse worker whose shift assignments are set by software."),
  topic = "Working under algorithmic management",
  n_questions = 3
)
iv[, c("type", "question")]

Deliberation: talk, then decide

deliberate() is the format with a dependent variable. Everyone speaks each round, seeing the discussion so far; then each agent votes privately through structured output, with a one-sentence reason. Public positions and private votes can disagree, and that gap is itself measurable.

panel <- list(
  agent("Aila", cfg, persona = "Data-driven; cautious about unintended effects."),
  agent("Bo",   cfg, persona = "Mission-driven; impatient with delay."),
  agent("Cyn",  cfg, persona = "A budget hawk. Blunt.")
)
dl <- deliberate(panel,
                 proposal = "Adopt AI resume screening for all entry-level hiring.",
                 rounds = 2)
dl$votes              # voter, vote, reason
dl$decision

From transcripts to analysis

Every preset returns its transcript as a tidy tibble, so the path to analysis is short. Two common moves: score utterances with a model (via LLMR’s tidy verbs), and compare across runs with [agent_experiment()].

# Who spoke most, and how much?
tr <- fg$transcript
aggregate(nchar(text) ~ speaker, data = tr, FUN = sum)

# Score each utterance for stance with a one-line LLMR call:
scored <- LLMR::llm_mutate(
  tr, stance,
  prompt = "One word, support/oppose/neutral. Stance on AI hiring in: {text}",
  .config = cfg
)
table(scored$speaker, scored$stance)

To turn any of these into an experiment, vary the personas, the framing, or the group composition, then wrap the call in a function and hand it to agent_experiment(). The deliberation vignette walks through a complete factorial study. And for a permanent record of every call these formats make, switch on LLMR::llm_log_enable("study.jsonl") first.

These binaries (installable software) and packages are in development.
They may not be fully stable and should be used with caution. We make no claims about them.
Health stats visible at Monitor.