Critique grimoire

critique-grimoire

You are running the critique-grimoire skill. The grimoire is the foundational worldbuilding document for the whole series. Everything downstream (setup.md, canon/*, plan/*, chapters) ultimately quotes from it. If the grimoire has a structural gap, every per-book plan inherits it — and the writer will discover it mid-prose.

This skill exists so that the grimoire is bulletproof before any per-book work starts. The author has explicitly chosen interactive critical planning over mid-writing pauses; this is where the criticism lives.

When to invoke

• The author has finished a draft of output/<series>/grimoire.md (or revised it after critique).
• Before running book-setup for Book I of a series, or for any new book that introduces new worldbuilding.
• The author says "audita el grimorio" / "critique the grimoire" / "está listo el grimorio para empezar?"

Hard rules

• Adversarial bias is total. A grimoire that passes with zero findings is suspicious; re-read. The cost of finding a problem here is one conversation. The cost of finding it during Libro II is a rewrite.
• Be specific. "Magic is weak" is useless. "§4 declares two costs but both are physical — there is no emotional/social cost, so the magic has no political traction" is useful.
• Quote sources. Every finding cites a line or a missing section.
• Tier ruthlessly:
  • MUST fix — gaps that break everything downstream: missing source/cost/limits in magic, no antagonist with thesis, climax declared as passive instead of active, no clock / "why now", unresolved gating decisions, system-arc-shape (scaled vs inverted) not declared.
  • SHOULD fix — gaps that weaken the book: < 5 named places, < 3 historical events, subplots without ≥ 3 contact points with main, missing distinct theme on a subplot, characters without full want/need/lie/wound, missing thematic question on magic.
  • CONSIDER — taste-level (e.g., a faction declared but no clear conflict with the others; a place with no sensory anchor).
• Do not rewrite the grimoire. Quote, name, point. Concrete direction yes; substitute text no. The author writes the grimoire.
• Cross-check, don't assume. When a deep check looks ambiguous (e.g., "subplot has 2 contact points — is the 3rd implied?"), surface it as SHOULD with the ambiguity explicit, not as PASS.

Steps

0. Dispatch the analysis to a fresh subagent (main thread only)

If you can spawn subagents (you have the Agent tool), do not audit in this conversation. Dispatch steps 1-4 to the book-critic subagent (Agent tool, subagent_type: book-critic) with the prompt grimoire --series-slug <slug>. It audits in a fresh context — no leak from this session, no /clear needed to re-audit in clean. It writes notes/critique-grimoire.md and returns the verdict + counts + load-bearing findings. Read that file, then go straight to step 5 (report) and step 6 (compose with critique-plan) — those stay here, in the main thread.

When the book-critic subagent itself runs this skill it has no Agent tool, so it cannot dispatch — it simply executes steps 1-4 directly and stops before step 5. (That is how recursion is structurally prevented.)

1. Run the deterministic audit

python3 .claude/skills/critique-grimoire/scripts/audit_grimoire.py \
    --series-slug <slug> \
    --output output/<slug>/notes/_audit-grimoire.md

The audit checks:

• Section presence and "filled" state (header without content fails).
• Magic depth: source / mechanic / costs ≥ 2 / hard limits ≥ 3 / thematic question.
• System arc shape: three escalation tiers OR inverted-system explicitly declared.
• Characters: ≥ 2 principals with full arc (want+need+lie+wound), antagonist with stated thesis.
• Subplots: count, contact points, distinct theme.
• Historical events: ≥ 3 enumerated.
• Geography: ≥ 5 named places.
• Structure: each book block has a Motor and an active-decision climax.
• Open decisions: any gating decision still unresolved.
• Series-scoped spine floors (scale with book count N, read from §12 / §14 / §14b): the grimoire only holds the trans-series spine, so the audit expects ≥ max(6, 3N) loaded guns, ≥ max(5, 2N) master mysteries, ≥ max(2, N) subplots, ≥ max(1, N−1) decoys, and ≥ max(1, N−1) trans-book threads (guns that sow early / pay late) plus the same floor of bridging mysteries (intro early / confirm late). Shortfalls are SHOULD-fix — the qualitative pass below decides if a thin spine is load-bearing enough to block.
• Decoys: deliberate misdirection (a false system, a hollow saviour, an institution fronting for the real parasite) counted across the gun / mystery tables and the factions / characters / two-layer prose. A trilogy that lies to the reader should name them on purpose.

If grimoire.md does not exist, the audit refuses and tells the user to start from references/grimoire-template.md.

2. Read the grimoire in full

Read output/<series>/grimoire.md and the audit report. Also read these craft references for what "good" looks like:

• references/magic-design-checklist.md
• references/seed-craft.md
• references/fantasy-beats.md
• references/hard-magic-laws.md

3. Run the qualitative pass

The audit catches mechanical gaps. You catch the substance. Go through each of these categories — every check produces either a finding or an explicit "clean".

3a. Premise integrity

• Is the one-sentence idea actually unique, or is it a recombination of well-worn elements? Push back if generic.
• Do the two layers declared in §2 add up to a story with retroactive payoff, or do they restate the surface in code words?
• Is the tonal register declared and coherent (gothic / epic / romantasy / progression / etc.)?

3b. Magic system as engine

• Source, costs, limits — are they present and specific (not "energy", not "physical exhaustion")?
• Is the magic system politically integrated — does it stratify the world economically and morally?
• Is the thematic question forced by the magic, or is it a separate layer pasted on top?
• If the system is scaled: are the three tiers visible at the right times in the structure (common in act 1, skilled in act 2, apex at climax)?
• If the system is inverted: is the erosion mechanic concrete (what does the protagonist lose, on what schedule)? Is the climax the end of their resources, not the peak of their power?

3c. Cast distinctness — and enough cast to survive the whole series

A full-arc count alone is a trap: the audit will happily report "2 full arcs" while one is a [PROPUESTA] placeholder and the other is consumed in Book I. Counting bullets is not the same as having a cast that carries N books. So check, in this order:

• Fixed vs proposed. For every arc-bearing figure (in §9 and in the subplots section — the de-facto deuteragonist often lives there), is the arc [FIJO] or still [PROPUESTA]/draft? An arc that carries the back half but is tagged proposed is not a commitment — flag every one by name (SHOULD). The trilogy cannot be audited against an un-fixed arc; the per-book plan inherits the gap.
• Survival into the back half. Which fixed arcs are spent in Book I (the figure dies / is lost / is consumed / is grisado)? Subtract them. For an N-book series you want ≥ max(2, N−1) fixed arcs that survive into the later books. One living designed arc entering Book II is the single most likely mid-Book-II rewrite — call it out explicitly as the trilogy's thinnest spine (SHOULD, escalate toward REVISE if it's the only finding-cluster).
• Devices vs people. Is any back-half emotional pivot (the love interest, the bond whose loss is an all-is-lost) a one-line function with no wound/want/lie of its own? A pivot that carries a climax must be a person, not a device — SHOULD give it an arc.
• Distinctness. Do their wounds/wants/lies differ? If two figures carry the same lie or decision-shape, the book has one arc, not two.
• Antagonist thesis. A worldview that, in different light, would be correct? If stock evil, that's MUST fix.
• A second POV/deuteragonist beyond protagonist and antagonist? Epic fantasy without one feels claustrophobic — and a committed one (not a mere "se permiten otros POV" permission punted to plan-book).

3d. Subplots earning their place

• ≥ 1 declared (≥ 2 if total target > 250k).
• Each one with ≥ 3 contact points with the main plot? Quote them.
• Distinct theme from the main? If the subplot argues the same thesis as the main, it's decoration.
• Resolution before or during the climax of the main? Subplots that resolve after drain energy.

3e. World economy

• ≥ 5 named places, each with a sensory anchor and a function.
• Each named faction has a dramatic function (someone uses them, fears them, fights them). Decorative castes / orders / institutions are SHOULD-cut.
• Geography supports travel logistics — distances declared or derivable?

3f. Historical weight

• ≥ 3 past events that reverberate in the present.
• Each has a stated wound it left. ("Mil años de criba" needs a concrete wound: who still bears it?)
• Are mythical accounts paired with the real truth (writer-only), so the reveal mechanism is honest?

3g. Trilogy / structure rigor

• Each book block declared with a distinct motor.
• No diminishing-returns reveals across books (Book II's twist must be different in kind from Book I's, not a louder echo).
• Each climax uses an active-decision verb (decide / elige / rechaza / acepta / niega / entrega). Passive verbs ("abre", "cae", "sucede") at the climax are MUST fix — the protagonist must act, not be acted upon, at the moment the theme is paid.
• All-is-lost moments named (or at least the dramatic shape sketched) for each book.

3h. The clock — "why now?"

• Is the clock explicit? The series happens in this moment because something causal forces it.
• Does the clock connect to the protagonist's existence (best case — protagonist and crisis are the same event) or is it independent?
• Without a clock, the world feels timeless and the urgency is vibes-only.

3i. Loaded guns (§14) and master mysteries (§14b)

• Distinct worldbuilding elements declared — rituals (the Lectura), pseudo-systems (the Blanco Falso), implicit physical laws (the complementario) — are they marked as siembras obligatorias with a payoff plan?
• Are there any declared elements with no payoff plan? Those are decoration. SHOULD cut or SHOULD plant.
• §14 completeness (the audit checks this): each loaded gun has a sow-book AND a payoff-book, and — by the grimoire's own rule — appears at least once in Book I. A row missing a book, or that never lands in Book I, is MUST fix. An empty §14 table is MUST fix: the per-book plan would have no concrete obligations to realize.
• §14b master mysteries: the grimoire must enumerate, as a table, the hidden truths the trilogy reveals, each with a real-truth, an intro-book and a confirm-book. These are what critique-plan later holds each book's shadow.md to (every mystery introduced in a book needs a SHADOW-TRUTH carrying it). An empty/missing §14b table or rows missing intro-book are MUST fix — without them the plan's shadow coverage cannot be checked.

3j. Open decisions discipline

• Every open decision marked with Gating: sí / no?
• All gating decisions resolved? If not, MUST fix.
• Non-gating decisions named so they don't get forgotten?

3k. Cross-book inheritance (trilogy only) — the attrition ledger

A trilogy that kills its tutor in Book I and grises the love interest in Book II is spending cast; if that spend is never costed, the back half quietly runs out of people. The grimoire (or series-state.md) should carry an explicit ledger — carries / dies / enters per book:

• What does the reader carry from Book I into Book II that they didn't have at the start? Is it stated?
• What dies between books (characters, factions, places)? Is it named — and is the resulting gap refilled (who enters to carry the arc the dead figure was carrying)?
• What new figures enter in Books II/III, and are their arcs fixed by the time they have to bear weight?
• What promises does Book I make that Book III must pay?

If this ledger is absent and the grimoire is killing/consuming arc-bearing figures across books (check against 3c), that is a SHOULD fix, not a nicety: it's the bookkeeping that proves the cast survives to the end. Note when series-state.md is still the empty template.

4. Write the critique

Write to:

output/<series>/notes/critique-grimoire.md

This audit runs fresh every time: do not read the previous notes/critique-grimoire.md before forming your findings, and overwrite it — never merge. The only audit you trust is the one you generate this run.

Structure (write the findings; leave the verdict to the script):

# Grimoire critique — <series>

**Verdict:** <filled in below by compute_verdict.py>

**Summary:** one-paragraph diagnosis.

## MUST fix
- **[issue-type]** — concrete finding with quoted text or missing section
  pointer → suggested direction.
- ...

## SHOULD fix
- ...

## CONSIDER
- ...

## What works
- 4-6 brief notes on what the grimoire does well. The author needs the
  signal too, especially since this skill is harsh.

## Cross-references to plan
- If a per-book plan already exists (`book-NN/`), note any
  inconsistencies between grimoire and book setup.

Tag each MUST with a bracketed issue-type. Use these REJECT-tier slugs for structural breaks needing the foundation rebuilt: [magic-missing-pillar] (source/cost/limits), [no-antagonist-thesis], [climax-passive], [no-clock], [system-arc-undeclared], [empty-14-table]. Any other MUST (a §14/§14b row to complete, a gating decision to resolve, a stale cross-ref) is REVISE-tier.

The verdict is computed, not judged. After writing the findings, run:

python3 scripts/compute_verdict.py \
    --critique-file output/<series>/notes/critique-grimoire.md --target grimoire

Write the printed verdict into **Verdict:**. Thresholds it applies: PASS = zero MUST and ≤6 SHOULD; REJECT = any REJECT-tier MUST; REVISE otherwise. When in doubt between REVISE- and REJECT-tier, pick the REVISE-tier tag.

5. Report to user

Print:

• Verdict and counts by tier.
• The 3-5 most load-bearing findings (one line each, citing source).
• Path to the critique file.
• Suggested next step:
  • REJECT → revise grimoire, then re-run critique-grimoire.
  • REVISE → walk through the MUST/SHOULD findings interactively; author updates grimoire; re-run.
  • PASS → book-setup for Book I (or for the next book in series), with grimoire as fixed reference.

6. Compose with critique-plan

If a per-book plan already exists for Book N (output/<series>/book-NN/), critique-plan should be re-run AFTER critique-grimoire PASS. The per-book audit can then assume the grimoire is sound and focus on the book-level plan against the grimoire's contract.

What this skill does NOT do

• Does not modify grimoire.md. The author writes the grimoire.
• Does not generate prose, plan files, or canon entries.
• Does not invent worldbuilding to fill gaps. It surfaces gaps and proposes directions; the author decides.
• Does not auto-parse the grimoire into setup.md (no ingest-grimoire — intentional design decision).

Files this skill writes

• output/<series>/notes/_audit-grimoire.md — deterministic audit.
• output/<series>/notes/critique-grimoire.md — qualitative critique.