kookr-rfc-critic-meta-analysislisted

# RFC Critic Meta-Analysis Use this skill after `rfc-iterative-review` when drafting or revising Kookr RFCs that should contribute evidence about reviewer-subagent quality. This skill does **not** replace `rfc-iterative-review`. It extends that workflow with a lightweight trace so future reports can answer which critics were useful, noisy, missing risks, or worth changing. ## Scope This is Kookr-internal because it writes Kookr RFC artifacts under `docs/rfc/` and informs Kookr's reviewer-subagent roster. Do not promote it to the toolkit plugin unless the paths and schema ownership are generalized. For the design rationale, see `docs/rfc/rfc-subagent-feedback-meta-analysis.md`. ## Trace Location For an RFC at: ```text docs/rfc/rfc-<slug>.md ``` write the trace at: ```text docs/rfc/meta/rfc-<slug>.critic-trace.jsonl ``` Each line is one JSON object using `docs/schemas/critic-trace.v1.json`. ## When to Capture During RFC review: 1. Run the normal `rfc-iterative-review` critic rounds. 2. After each critic returns, append one `invocation` event. 3. For each substantive finding that survives triage, append one `finding` event. 4. Keep the normal human-readable `Critic Feedback Incorporated` section in the RFC. 5. At the end of the RFC, add a short `Meta-analysis readiness` note in the critic-feedback section. Do not record every sentence from critic output. Record substantive findings: defects, missing constraints, empirical-check requests, scope changes, user-intent