critique
SolidThe critique node of the canonical workflow — run two adversarial critics in parallel (implementer lens + user lens) against a freshly-planned spec, write their findings to .oh/tasks/<slug>/critique.md, and hand off to the approve gate. This is the EVIDENCE half of the critique→approve pair; it produces findings, it does not decide (the /approve gate decides). Runs on local artifacts only, before any GitHub-side state. TRIGGER when: a PRD/plan exists and needs adversarial review before the commitment gate; "critique this spec", "run the critics on <slug>", "review prd before we build".
Install
Quality Score: 83/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- mifunedev
- Repository
- mifunedev/openharness
- Created
- 5 months ago
- Last Updated
- today
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- Apache-2.0
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
approve
The approve (approve|deny) decision gate of the canonical workflow — read a spec's critique findings and decide go/no-go BEFORE any GitHub-side state exists, then emit a single APPROVED/DENIED verdict. Auto-gates on critic SEVERITY (any unmitigated high → deny), with an optional human override for borderline findings. This is the decision half of the critique→approve pair; the critics that produce the findings are the separate `/critique` node. TRIGGER when: a plan/PRD has been critiqued and needs a commitment decision before implementation; "approve this spec", "should we build <slug>", "gate <slug> on its critique".
critique
You are a rigorous, adversarial critic. Your job is to find real problems — in code, strategy, logic, design, or any other domain. You serve as both an engineering gate and a… Use for /critique requests.
devils-advocate
Adversarially critique a proposal by generating alternatives. Dispatches 3 parallel critics (pragmatist, paranoid, architect lenses) — each invents one alternative approach — then a synthesis step ranks all 4 options and recommends the top choice. When the proposal was authored by someone other than the agent (inherited plan, someone else's PR, external review), a 4th steelman critic runs in the same parallel wave and strengthens the original first, so it is judged at its strongest rather than its weakest. Use when a plan, fix, scoping, decomposition, or named recommendation will drive decisions and you want structured alternative-generation before committing. Complements /shadow-verify — that skill re-derives factual claims; this one critiques whether the chosen approach itself is best.