Micro harsh review

Skill bordenet/superpowers-plus/skills/engineering/micro-harsh-review

Per-batch adversarial review for ANY code change. 3 critic personas score on 5 dimensions each. Score <8 average = REJECT + rework. Faster than full review, more rigorous than lint.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add bordenet/superpowers-plus --skill micro-harsh-review

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

8 stars8 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

3.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Micro Harsh Review

Wrong skill? Full PR -> progressive-code-review-gate. Non-code -> progressive-harsh-review. Style -> enforce-style-guide.

Announce at start: "I am using the micro-harsh-review skill to review this change."

When to Use

Before committing ANY code change (even 1 function)
After modifying logic, not just formatting
Before pushing to shared branch
When editing router patterns or gate thresholds

Example

# Example: 3-critic scoring
echo "=== Micro Harsh Review: router pattern change ==="
echo "Critic 1 (Nitpick):  8/10 - case sensitivity concern"
echo "Critic 2 (Arch):     9/10 - minimal scope, pattern-local"
echo "Critic 3 (Prod):     7/10 - no collision test added"
echo "Average: 8.0 -> PASS (conditional: add collision test)"

3-Critic Protocol

Critic 1: NitpickLineByLine

Full access. START FROM the local diff. PRIORITIZE line-by-line syntax, naming, and surface-level correctness.

Check	Score /10	Notes
Off-by-one
Null handling
String comparison
Error messages
Variable naming

Critic 2: ArchSoundnessProbe

Full access. START FROM interface contracts and public APIs. PRIORITIZE ripple analysis across callers and downstream consumers.

Respects patterns? /10 . Downstream impact? /10 . Minimal scope? /10 . 10x load? /10 . Reversible? /10

Critic 3: ProdBattleTest

Full access. START FROM failure modes and state transitions. PRIORITIZE error handling, retry/rollback logic, and 3 AM operational safety.

Edge cases? /10 . Failure mode? /10 . Logging? /10 . Backward compat? /10 . Ship at 3 AM? /10

Scoring

Average = (Nitpick + Arch + Prod) / 3

= 8.0 -> PASS
= 6.0 -> CONDITIONAL — fix flagged, re-review
< 6.0 -> REJECT -> think-twice -> redo

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Detection	Correction
Rubber-stamp	All scores 9-10, no notes	Find >=1 concern per critic
Inflated scores	Average > 9.0 consistently	Recalibrate with known-bad code
Critics agree	Same findings across all 3	Force second-order critique: each must name ≥1 failure mode or cite a specific property of the change explaining why none exists (generic "it's straightforward" = rubber-stamp)
Review > coding time	>15 min for <20 lines	Top 3 risks only

Failure Modes

Failure	Detection	Recovery
Rubber-stamp (all 10s)	No notes	Find >=1 concern per critic
Review > change time	>15 min for <20 lines	Top 3 risks only
Critics agree on everything	Same findings	Force second-order critique: name ≥1 plausible failure mode or cite specific change property explaining why none exists
Score inflation	Average > 9.0 consistently	Recalibrate with bad code

Companion Skills

progressive-code-review-gate: Full PR review (heavier)
pre-commit-gate: Pre-commit (lighter, automated)
enforce-style-guide: Style enforcement
think-twice: Deeper problem revealed
failure-autopsy: Reviewed code fails later