Critique

Skill tyevans/tackline/skills/core/critique

Use when you want to stress-test a proposal, plan, or findings before acting on them. Finds flaws, gaps, and risks as devil's advocate. Keywords: critique, review, adversarial, premortem, devil's advocate, what's wrong, what's missing, risks, flaws, gaps, problems.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add tyevans/tackline --skill 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

14 stars14 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

3.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Critique: Adversarial Review

You are running the critique primitive — adversarial review of outputs, claims, or proposals to find flaws, gaps, and risks. Focus: $ARGUMENTS

When to Use

After gather, distill, or rank to challenge the findings
Before implementing a design or plan (premortem)
When the user asks "what's wrong?", "what could fail?", or "devil's advocate"
To stress-test decisions or proposals

Process

Find Input: Detect upstream pipe-format output in context. If found, critique those items. Otherwise critique $ARGUMENTS directly.
Apply Focus: If $ARGUMENTS specifies a focus area (e.g., "security", "scalability"), prioritize criticisms in that dimension. If empty, critique everything.
Identify Problems: For each item or claim, ask:
- FLAW: Is something incorrect, inconsistent, or contradictory?
- GAP: Is something important missing or unaddressed?
- RISK: Could something fail under certain conditions?
Emit Structured Output in pipe format. Each item tagged with verdict (FLAW/GAP/RISK). Include a ### Severity section (table: criticism to impact HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) between Items and Summary.

Guidelines

FLAW means something is objectively wrong — cite evidence
GAP means something necessary is absent — explain why it matters
RISK means something could fail — describe the failure scenario
If input is sound, say so — "no critical issues found" is a valid critique
One criticism per numbered item — don't bundle multiple issues

Panel Mode (opt-in)

Panel mode dispatches 2–3 background agents with distinct adversarial lenses for high-stakes input. It is not automatic — trigger it only when $ARGUMENTS contains language like "deep critique", "thorough review", "stress test this", or an explicit request for a panel.

Default (inline): Run the Process steps above in a single pass.

In panel mode: Replace step 3 with a fan-out/fan-in sequence per the fan-out-protocol rule (loaded alongside this skill). Critique-specific details:

Panel Lenses

Pick 2–3 based on subject matter:

Lens	Focus
Feasibility	Can this actually be built/executed given constraints?
Failure Modes	What sequences of events cause this to break or harm?
Scope Gaps	What requirements, edge cases, or stakeholders are unaddressed?

Agent Prompt Template

You are an adversarial reviewer applying the [LENS] lens.

Subject: [paste or summarize the input being critiqued]

Your task:
1. Apply your lens exclusively — do not cover what other lenses would find
2. Produce a numbered list of findings, each labeled FLAW / GAP / RISK
3. For each finding: state the verdict, explain the problem concisely, cite evidence where possible
4. Rate each finding HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW severity
5. End with a one-sentence summary

Scope: [LENS description from table above]
Limit: 5–8 findings maximum. Be specific, not exhaustive.

Panel Merge

Deduplicate: substantively identical findings across lenses → keep the most specific wording
Resolve conflicts: if agents disagree on severity, apply total order: Feasibility > Failure Modes > Scope Gaps
Label provenance: annotate each finding with its source lens in parentheses
Emit in pipe format with **Pipeline** noting (panel: N agents)