npx skills add ...
npx skills add neolabhq/context-engineering-kit --skill critique
Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building
npx skills add neolabhq/context-engineering-kit --skill critique
The review is report-only - findings are presented for user consideration without automatic fixes.
Before starting the review, understand what was done:
Identify the scope of work to review:
Capture relevant context:
Summarize scope for confirmation:
Use the Task tool to spawn three specialized judge agents in parallel. Each judge operates independently without seeing others' reviews.
Prompt for Agent:
Prompt for Agent:
Prompt for Agent:
Implementation Note: Use the Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose" to spawn these three agents in parallel, each with their respective prompt and context.
After receiving all three judge reports:
Synthesize the findings:
Conduct debate session (if significant disagreements exist):
Reach consensus:
Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
# 🔍 Work Critique Report
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences summarizing overall assessment]
**Overall Quality Score**: X/10 (average of three judge scores)
---
## 📊 Judge Scores
| Judge | Score | Key Finding |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Requirements Validator | X/10 | [one-line summary] |
| Solution Architect | X/10 | [one-line summary] |
| Code Quality Reviewer | X/10 | [one-line summary] |
---
## ✅ Strengths
[Synthesized list of what was done well, with specific examples]
1. **[Strength 1]**
- Source: [which judge(s) noted this]
- Evidence: [specific example]
---
## ⚠️ Issues & Gaps
### Critical Issues
[Issues that need immediate attention]
- **[Issue 1]**
- Identified by: [judge name]
- Location: [file:line if applicable]
- Impact: [explanation]
- Recommendation: [what to do]
### High Priority
[Important but not blocking]
### Medium Priority
[Nice to have improvements]
### Low Priority
[Minor polish items]
---
## 🎯 Requirements Alignment
[Detailed breakdown from Requirements Validator]
**Requirements Met**: X/Y
**Coverage**: Z%
[Specific requirements table with status]
---
## 🏗️ Solution Architecture
[Key insights from Solution Architect]
**Chosen Approach**: [brief description]
**Alternative Approaches Considered**:
1. [Alternative 1] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
2. [Alternative 2] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
**Recommendation**: [Stick with current / Consider alternative X because...]
---
## 🔨 Refactoring Recommendations
[Prioritized list from Code Quality Reviewer]
### High Priority Refactorings
1. **[Refactoring Name]**
- Benefit: [explanation]
- Effort: [estimate]
- Before/After: [code examples]
### Medium Priority Refactorings
[similar structure]
---
## 🤝 Areas of Consensus
[List where all judges agreed]
- [Agreement 1]
- [Agreement 2]
---
## 💬 Areas of Debate
[If applicable - where judges disagreed]
**Debate 1: [Topic]**
- Requirements Validator position: [summary]
- Solution Architect position: [summary]
- Resolution: [consensus reached or "reasonable disagreement"]
---
## 📋 Action Items (Prioritized)
Based on the critique, here are recommended next steps:
**Must Do**:
- [ ] [Critical action 1]
- [ ] [Critical action 2]
**Should Do**:
- [ ] [High priority action 1]
- [ ] [High priority action 2]
**Could Do**:
- [ ] [Medium priority action 1]
- [ ] [Nice to have action 2]
---
## 🎓 Learning Opportunities
[Lessons that could improve future work]
- [Learning 1]
- [Learning 2]
---
## 📝 Conclusion
[Final assessment paragraph summarizing whether the work meets quality standards and key takeaways]
**Verdict**: ✅ Ready to ship | ⚠️ Needs improvements before shipping | ❌ Requires significant rework
---
*Generated using Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern*
*Review Date: [timestamp]*# Review recent work from conversation
/critique
# Review specific files
/critique src/feature.ts src/feature.test.ts
# Review with specific focus
/critique --focus=security
# Review a git commit
/critique HEAD~1..HEAD