diff --git a/src/coordinator/orchestrator.py b/src/coordinator/orchestrator.py
index 6c185d6..736a2f4 100644
--- a/src/coordinator/orchestrator.py
+++ b/src/coordinator/orchestrator.py
@@ -419,7 +419,14 @@ def _build_debate_round_comment(
     round_num: int,
     prior_reports: dict[str, str],
 ) -> str:
-    """Post a debate-round mention comment showing all 3 judges each others' prior reports."""
+    """Post a debate-round mention comment showing all 3 judges each others' prior reports.
+
+    Instruction text is taken directly from CEK's judge-with-debate skill
+    (plugins/sadd/skills/judge-with-debate/SKILL.md, "Additional debate
+    instructions" and "CRITICAL" blocks).  Rewriting this into softer
+    phrasing produced sycophantic convergence in the first live run; we
+    stick to CEK's wording.
+    """
     mentions = " ".join(
         f"[@{name}](mention://agent/{judge_agent_ids[name]})"
         if judge_agent_ids.get(name)
@@ -429,13 +436,30 @@ def _build_debate_round_comment(
     parts = [
         mentions,
         f"**Debate round {round_num}** — your prior reports disagree beyond the consensus threshold.",
-        "Each of you: read the others' reports below, re-examine the commit, then post a REVISED `evaluation_report` YAML. You may hold your position if you have new evidence; you may move if you find the other reasoning more grounded. Do not split the difference to compromise.",
+        "Follow your full judge process as defined in your agent instructions.",
+        "",
+        "**Additional debate instructions:**",
+        "1. Read your previous assessment (your own prior report below).",
+        "2. Read all other judges' reports (also below).",
+        "3. Identify disagreements (where your scores differ by >1 point).",
+        "4. For each major disagreement:",
+        "   - State the disagreement clearly",
+        "   - Defend your position with evidence from the solution and evaluation specification",
+        "   - Challenge the other judge's position with counter-evidence",
+        "   - Consider whether their evidence changes your view",
+        "5. Post a new reply containing a `## Debate Round {R}` section that APPENDS to your prior report (include your prior report verbatim first, then the new section).",
+        "6. At the end of your reply, state whether you reached agreement and with which judge. Include your (possibly revised) overall score and per-criterion scores in the same YAML format.",
+        "",
+        "**CRITICAL:**",
+        "- Ground your arguments in the evaluation specification criteria.",
+        "- **Only revise if you find their evidence compelling.**",
+        "- **Defend your original scores if you still believe them.**",
+        "- Quote specific evidence from the solution.",
     ]
     for name in JUDGE_NAMES:
         content = prior_reports.get(name, "*(no prior report)*")
         parts.append(f"---\n\n### {name} — prior report\n\n{content}")
     parts.append("---")
-    parts.append("Post your revised report as a NEW reply. Do not edit prior reports.")
     return "\n\n".join(parts)
 
 
diff --git a/tests/test_orchestrator.py b/tests/test_orchestrator.py
index 1dc9a37..87bfc67 100644
--- a/tests/test_orchestrator.py
+++ b/tests/test_orchestrator.py
@@ -396,6 +396,28 @@ def test_debate_round_comment_quotes_all_prior_reports():
         assert f"REPORT FROM {n}" in body
 
 
+def test_debate_round_comment_contains_cek_anti_sycophancy_language():
+    """Regression: do not soften CEK's critical debate instructions.
+
+    The first live run produced sycophantic convergence because the earlier,
+    softer phrasing dropped CEK's explicit 'only revise if compelling / defend
+    original if you still believe them' instructions.  Any future edit that
+    removes these exact clauses should be caught here.
+    """
+    judge_ids = {n: f"id-{n}" for n in JUDGE_NAMES}
+    body = _build_debate_round_comment(judge_ids, 1, {n: "x" for n in JUDGE_NAMES})
+    # CEK's structural instructions
+    assert "Identify disagreements (where your scores differ by >1 point)" in body
+    assert "Defend your position with evidence" in body
+    assert "Challenge the other judge's position with counter-evidence" in body
+    # CEK's CRITICAL anti-sycophancy list
+    assert "Only revise if you find their evidence compelling." in body
+    assert "Defend your original scores if you still believe them." in body
+    # APPEND not REVISE
+    assert "APPENDS to your prior report" in body
+    assert "REVISED" not in body  # the old softer phrasing is gone
+
+
 def test_retrigger_comment_has_anchor_and_no_drift_instructions():
     body = _build_retrigger_comment("Worker", "agent-worker", "Original desc line.", "VERDICT: REJECT", "r1")
     assert "mention://agent/agent-worker" in body