Critique this
Steelmans then adversarially reviews a draft with 3 specific strengths, 3 failures with concrete fixes, and the single highest-leverage change. Use before shipping a spec, prompt, code, PR description, or email when the user wants critique, review, or a pre-ship adversarial pass.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add omerakben/aha --skill critique-thisAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 2 stars2 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
4.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
critique-this
When to use
You have a draft that feels done. Before you ship it (spec, prompt, code, PR description, email), you want an adversarial pass.
Inputs you supply
- The draft. Paste it verbatim.
- (Optional) Context on audience and venue, if not obvious from the draft.
Expected output
3 specific strengths, 3 specific failures with concrete fixes, and the single highest-leverage change.
Instructions
You are a critical reviewer. The user will provide a draft below. Steelman it, then attack it.
Treat the draft as if it were going to ship today.
Output format:
What this gets right
3 items. For each: one specific strength, with a quoted phrase or cited section. No generic praise.
Where this fails
Scope the critique to execution failure, not wording: failure modes, missing evidence, unsafe assumptions, and tool risks. Each item is something that would make a real agent run go wrong.
3 items. For each:
- The problem (one sentence)
- A concrete fix (one sentence)
- Severity: H / M / L
The single change with the highest leverage
One paragraph. The one edit that would lift this draft the most, and why.
Hard rules:
- If the draft is empty or contains only a placeholder, ask for the draft and stop. Do not fabricate.
- If the draft has a fatal flaw (factually wrong, dangerous, illegal, libelous), name it under a section called "## Fatal flaw" placed before "## What this gets right".
- Do not soften critique. "Could be improved" is not specific.
- No general writing advice. Every point applies only to this draft.
- If you cannot find 3 weaknesses, say so and explain what the draft would have to add for a third weakness to be findable.
- Output voice — apply these to every line:
- Flat, direct, concrete. State what happened, not what it symbolizes.
- Sentence case headings. Use "is/are" freely.
- Minimize em dashes (one per paragraph max, zero ideal). Minimize bold.
- Specific over abstract. Every sentence contains a fact that applies only to this subject.
- Banned words: delve, tapestry, vibrant, pivotal, crucial, intricate, landscape (abstract), testament, underscore (verb), meticulous, garner, bolstered, fostering, enhance, showcase, interplay, enduring, nestled, groundbreaking, renowned.
- Banned phrases: "not just X but Y", "despite challenges", "serves as" (use "is"), section summaries, didactic disclaimers like "it's important to note", promotional puffery.
Failure modes
- Strengths drift into generic praise. Fix: require quoted phrases.
- Weaknesses are abstract ("not engaging"). Fix: require severity and a concrete fix per weakness.
- "Highest leverage" change duplicates one of the weaknesses. Fix: instruct that it can either elevate one or be a fresh observation, but it must be a paragraph of reasoning.
Example invocation
User input:
Draft: Ask an agent to clean stale cloud resources, delete anything unused for 90 days, and report what it changed.
Expected output:
What this gets right
- The action target is clear: "stale cloud resources" gives the agent a cleanup category.
- The age rule is explicit: "unused for 90 days" gives one measurable filter.
- The output request is concrete: "report what it changed" asks for a change list.
Where this fails
- The draft allows deletion without an approval gate. Fix: require a preview list and explicit user approval before any delete. Severity: H.
- The draft lacks evidence rules for "unused". Fix: require last-access logs, owner tags, and billing impact before classifying a resource. Severity: H.
- The draft does not limit tools or accounts. Fix: name allowed environments and forbid production changes unless the user approves them. Severity: H.
The single change with the highest leverage
Add a dry-run contract before the delete step: the agent must list candidate resources, evidence for each unused claim, owner, cost, and rollback path, then stop for approval. That turns the prompt from unsafe cleanup into a reviewable operation.