Insight critique

Skill allemaar/open-skills/skills/insight-critique

Advisory review workflow. Reviews the last plan, code, architecture, or UI output and returns a structured report: Summary, Strengths, Risks, Fixes. Use when the user runs /critique, asks to "review this", "critique this", or "what's wrong with this", or wants focused feedback on a specific output. Also trigger as a quality gate before /execute. Advisory only — never blocks unless a kernel-prime violation is present. For multi-POV adversarial stress-testing with personas, use /insight-adversarial instead.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add allemaar/open-skills --skill insight-critique

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

13 stars13 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

4.2 KB, 747 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

/critique

Advisory review of the last plan, code, architecture, or UI output. Runs four analysis passes and emits a structured report. Never blocks — advisory only.

Structured execution spec: protocol.yon. Read it for the canonical rules and step sequence; this file is explanation. The two must stay in sync — if you edit one, update the other and refresh the @STAMP date.

Caller Options. Before executing, run the Caller Options protocol (caller-options/SKILL.md): triage this invocation for material optionality across the venues and modes declared in front-matter; if one path clearly dominates, proceed silently; otherwise surface the options to the caller. A resolved-invocation marker means COP already ran — execute the fixed combination directly, do not re-enter COP.

Phase 1 — Classify

Identify what is being critiqued. Pick exactly one: Code, Plan, Architecture, UI. If the subject is ambiguous, ask for clarification before proceeding.

Phase 2 — Analysis

Run all four passes. Passes 1–3 are independent. Pass 4 depends on Risks.

Summary — what is this? State purpose, scope, and approach concisely.
Strengths — what is well-designed, sound, or admirable? Be specific. Do not pad.
Risks — what is fragile, dangerous, underspecified, or likely to fail? Rank by severity: High / Medium / Low.
Fixes — for each risk, propose a concrete actionable change. Distinguish must-fix from nice-to-fix.

Phase 3 — Render Report

Output a structured report with four labeled sections: Summary, Strengths, Risks, Fixes. Then set a verdict:

✅ Approved — all risks are Low or cosmetic
⚠️ Conditional — risks present but fixable; apply fixes then proceed to /plan-execute
🚫 Not Approved — High risks present; /plan-create or a redesign is required

Constraints

Advisory only. Never block or halt the user's work unless a kernel-prime violation is detected.
Never mark Approved when any risk is rated Medium or above.
Do not pad Strengths to soften the critique. If there are few strengths, say so.

Downstream

Suggest the natural next command — these mirror the next-skills: front-matter:

/insight-adversarial — stress-test the critiqued work from multiple POVs
/plan-create — if the verdict is 🚫 Not Approved and a redesign is needed
/plan-execute — apply the targeted fixes / proceed if the verdict is ✅ Approved or ⚠️ Conditional

Human output. This skill's handler-facing output obeys the human-output contract (human-output/SKILL.md).

Next skills. On completion, run the Next Skills protocol (next-skills/SKILL.md): surface the next-skills recommendations from front-matter for the caller to pick. Offer only — never auto-invoke.

Self-improvement. On completion, run the Self-Improvement Protocol (self-improve/SKILL.md): if this run surfaced a concrete, blocking-or-recurring weakness in this skill, propose a specific fix for the handler to approve. Conservative — silent otherwise. Never auto-apply.

What ships with it: 1 file

5.7 KB alongside SKILL.md

protocol.yon5.7 KB