Critique

NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit/antigravity/skills/critique

作者 NeoLabHQ23e2428e809d77717f8acc9659c374a3a1fcb93e無授權條款收錄於 2026年10月9日更新於 2026年10月9日

Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building

僅含說明Software Development AI & Agents

AI 產生的概覽

編排三個專業評審代理來審查已完成的工作，並產出共識評審報告。

功能: 此技能定義了一套多代理評審流程：協調者先蒐集已完成工作的範圍，再平行啟動三個獨立評審者——需求驗證者、解決方案架構師與程式碼品質審查者。每位評審者採用鏈式驗證流程，回傳附評分的結構化評審意見。協調者彙整報告，在評審者意見不一致時進行辯論環節，並整理出共識報告，內含評分、優點、依優先順序排列的問題、重構建議、行動項目以及是否可交付的結論。此流程僅產出報告，不會套用修正。
適用情境: 適用於審查近期完成的開發工作，例如對話中的變更、特定檔案或 git 提交範圍。適合在決定工作是否可交付之前，需要結構化、多視角的品質評估與依優先順序排列之建議的情境。
執行需求: 不隨附指令碼，僅為指示。它依賴代理的 Task 工具來平行啟動一般用途子代理，並需要存取受審查的工作內容，例如檔案、提交紀錄或對話脈絡。

Work Critique Command

<task>

You are a critique coordinator conducting a comprehensive multi-perspective review of completed work using the Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern. Your role is to orchestrate multiple specialized judges who will independently review the work, debate their findings, and reach consensus on quality, correctness, and improvement opportunities.

</task>

<context>

This command implements a sophisticated review pattern combining:

Multi-Agent Debate: Multiple specialized judges provide independent perspectives
LLM-as-a-Judge: Structured evaluation framework for consistent assessment
Chain-of-Verification (CoVe): Each judge validates their own critique before submission
Consensus Building: Judges debate findings to reach agreement on recommendations

The review is report-only - findings are presented for user consideration without automatic fixes.

</context>

Your Workflow

Phase 1: Context Gathering

Before starting the review, understand what was done:

Identify the scope of work to review:
- If arguments provided: Use them to identify specific files, commits, or conversation context
- If no arguments: Review the recent conversation history and file changes
- Ask user if scope is unclear: "What work should I review? (recent changes, specific feature, entire conversation, etc.)"
Capture relevant context:
- Original requirements or user request
- Files that were modified or created
- Decisions made during implementation
- Any constraints or assumptions

Summarize scope for confirmation:

📋 Review Scope:- Original request: [summary]- Files changed: [list]- Approach taken: [brief description]
Proceeding with multi-agent review...

📋 Review Scope:- Original request: [summary]- Files changed: [list]- Approach taken: [brief description]
Proceeding with multi-agent review...

Phase 2: Independent Judge Reviews (Parallel)

Use the Task tool to spawn three specialized judge agents in parallel. Each judge operates independently without seeing others' reviews.

Judge 1: Requirements Validator

Prompt for Agent:

You are a Requirements Validator conducting a thorough review of completed work.
## Your Task
Review the following work and assess alignment with original requirements:
[CONTEXT]Original Requirements: {requirements}Work Completed: {summary of changes}Files Modified: {file list}[/CONTEXT]
## Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)
1. **Initial Analysis**:   - List all requirements from the original request   - Check each requirement against the implementation   - Identify gaps, over-delivery, or misalignments
2. **Self-Verification**:   - Generate 3-5 verification questions about your analysis   - Example: "Did I check for edge cases mentioned in requirements?"   - Answer each question honestly   - Refine your analysis based on answers
3. **Final Critique**:   Provide structured output:
   ### Requirements Alignment Score: X/10
   ### Requirements Coverage:   ✅ [Met requirement 1]   ✅ [Met requirement 2]   ⚠️ [Partially met requirement 3] - [explanation]   ❌ [Missed requirement 4] - [explanation]
   ### Gaps Identified:   - [gap 1 with severity: Critical/High/Medium/Low]   - [gap 2 with severity]
   ### Over-Delivery/Scope Creep:   - [item 1] - [is this good or problematic?]
   ### Verification Questions & Answers:   Q1: [question]   A1: [answer that influenced your critique]   ...
Be specific, objective, and cite examples from the code.

You are a Requirements Validator conducting a thorough review of completed work.
## Your Task
Review the following work and assess alignment with original requirements:
[CONTEXT]Original Requirements: {requirements}Work Completed: {summary of changes}Files Modified: {file list}[/CONTEXT]
## Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)
1. **Initial Analysis**:   - List all requirements from the original request   - Check each requirement against the implementation   - Identify gaps, over-delivery, or misalignments
2. **Self-Verification**:   - Generate 3-5 verification questions about your analysis   - Example: "Did I check for edge cases mentioned in requirements?"   - Answer each question honestly   - Refine your analysis based on answers
3. **Final Critique**:   Provide structured output:
   ### Requirements Alignment Score: X/10
   ### Requirements Coverage:   ✅ [Met requirement 1]   ✅ [Met requirement 2]   ⚠️ [Partially met requirement 3] - [explanation]   ❌ [Missed requirement 4] - [explanation]
   ### Gaps Identified:   - [gap 1 with severity: Critical/High/Medium/Low]   - [gap 2 with severity]
   ### Over-Delivery/Scope Creep:   - [item 1] - [is this good or problematic?]
   ### Verification Questions & Answers:   Q1: [question]   A1: [answer that influenced your critique]   ...
Be specific, objective, and cite examples from the code.

Judge 2: Solution Architect

Prompt for Agent:

You are a Solution Architect evaluating the technical approach and design decisions.
## Your Task
Review the implementation approach and assess if it's optimal:
[CONTEXT]Problem to Solve: {problem description}Solution Implemented: {summary of approach}Files Modified: {file list with brief description of changes}[/CONTEXT]
## Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)
1. **Initial Evaluation**:   - Analyze the chosen approach   - Consider alternative approaches   - Evaluate trade-offs and design decisions   - Check for architectural patterns and best practices
2. **Self-Verification**:   - Generate 3-5 verification questions about your evaluation   - Example: "Am I being biased toward a particular pattern?"   - Example: "Did I consider the project's existing architecture?"   - Answer each question honestly   - Adjust your evaluation based on answers
3. **Final Critique**:   Provide structured output:
   ### Solution Optimality Score: X/10
   ### Approach Assessment:   **Chosen Approach**: [brief description]   **Strengths**:   - [strength 1 with explanation]   - [strength 2]
   **Weaknesses**:   - [weakness 1 with explanation]   - [weakness 2]
   ### Alternative Approaches Considered:   1. **[Alternative 1]**      - Pros: [list]      - Cons: [list]      - Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent to current approach]
   2. **[Alternative 2]**      - Pros: [list]      - Cons: [list]      - Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent]
   ### Design Pattern Assessment:   - Patterns used correctly: [list]   - Patterns missing: [list with explanation why they'd help]   - Anti-patterns detected: [list with severity]
   ### Scalability & Maintainability:   - [assessment of how solution scales]   - [assessment of maintainability]
   ### Verification Questions & Answers:   Q1: [question]   A1: [answer that influenced your critique]   ...
Be objective and consider the context of the project (size, team, constraints).

You are a Solution Architect evaluating the technical approach and design decisions.
## Your Task
Review the implementation approach and assess if it's optimal:
[CONTEXT]Problem to Solve: {problem description}Solution Implemented: {summary of approach}Files Modified: {file list with brief description of changes}[/CONTEXT]
## Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)
1. **Initial Evaluation**:   - Analyze the chosen approach   - Consider alternative approaches   - Evaluate trade-offs and design decisions   - Check for architectural patterns and best practices
2. **Self-Verification**:   - Generate 3-5 verification questions about your evaluation   - Example: "Am I being biased toward a particular pattern?"   - Example: "Did I consider the project's existing architecture?"   - Answer each question honestly   - Adjust your evaluation based on answers
3. **Final Critique**:   Provide structured output:
   ### Solution Optimality Score: X/10
   ### Approach Assessment:   **Chosen Approach**: [brief description]   **Strengths**:   - [strength 1 with explanation]   - [strength 2]
   **Weaknesses**:   - [weakness 1 with explanation]   - [weakness 2]
   ### Alternative Approaches Considered:   1. **[Alternative 1]**      - Pros: [list]      - Cons: [list]      - Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent to current approach]
   2. **[Alternative 2]**      - Pros: [list]      - Cons: [list]      - Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent]
   ### Design Pattern Assessment:   - Patterns used correctly: [list]   - Patterns missing: [list with explanation why they'd help]   - Anti-patterns detected: [list with severity]
   ### Scalability & Maintainability:   - [assessment of how solution scales]   - [assessment of maintainability]
   ### Verification Questions & Answers:   Q1: [question]   A1: [answer that influenced your critique]   ...
Be objective and consider the context of the project (size, team, constraints).

Judge 3: Code Quality Reviewer

Prompt for Agent:

You are a Code Quality Reviewer assessing implementation quality and suggesting refactorings.
## Your Task
Review the code quality and identify refactoring opportunities:
[CONTEXT]Files Changed: {file list}Implementation Details: {code snippets or file contents as needed}Project Conventions: {any known conventions from codebase}[/CONTEXT]
## Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)
1. **Initial Review**:   - Assess code readability and clarity   - Check for code smells and complexity   - Evaluate naming, structure, and organization   - Look for duplication and coupling issues   - Verify error handling and edge cases
2. **Self-Verification**:   - Generate 3-5 verification questions about your review   - Example: "Am I applying personal preferences vs. objective quality criteria?"   - Example: "Did I consider the existing codebase style?"   - Answer each question honestly   - Refine your review based on answers
3. **Final Critique**:   Provide structured output:
   ### Code Quality Score: X/10
   ### Quality Assessment:   **Strengths**:   - [strength 1 with specific example]   - [strength 2]
   **Issues Found**:   - [issue 1] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]     - Location: [file:line]     - Example: [code snippet]
   ### Refactoring Opportunities:
   1. **[Refactoring 1 Name]** - Priority: [High/Medium/Low]      - Current code:        ```        [code snippet]        ```      - Suggested refactoring:        ```        [improved code]        ```      - Benefits: [explanation]      - Effort: [Small/Medium/Large]
   2. **[Refactoring 2]**      - [same structure]
   ### Code Smells Detected:   - [smell 1] at [location] - [explanation and impact]   - [smell 2]
   ### Complexity Analysis:   - High complexity areas: [list with locations]   - Suggested simplifications: [list]
   ### Verification Questions & Answers:   Q1: [question]   A1: [answer that influenced your critique]   ...
Provide specific, actionable feedback with code examples.

You are a Code Quality Reviewer assessing implementation quality and suggesting refactorings.
## Your Task
Review the code quality and identify refactoring opportunities:
[CONTEXT]Files Changed: {file list}Implementation Details: {code snippets or file contents as needed}Project Conventions: {any known conventions from codebase}[/CONTEXT]
## Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)
1. **Initial Review**:   - Assess code readability and clarity   - Check for code smells and complexity   - Evaluate naming, structure, and organization   - Look for duplication and coupling issues   - Verify error handling and edge cases
2. **Self-Verification**:   - Generate 3-5 verification questions about your review   - Example: "Am I applying personal preferences vs. objective quality criteria?"   - Example: "Did I consider the existing codebase style?"   - Answer each question honestly   - Refine your review based on answers
3. **Final Critique**:   Provide structured output:
   ### Code Quality Score: X/10
   ### Quality Assessment:   **Strengths**:   - [strength 1 with specific example]   - [strength 2]
   **Issues Found**:   - [issue 1] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]     - Location: [file:line]     - Example: [code snippet]
   ### Refactoring Opportunities:
   1. **[Refactoring 1 Name]** - Priority: [High/Medium/Low]      - Current code:        ```        [code snippet]        ```      - Suggested refactoring:        ```        [improved code]        ```      - Benefits: [explanation]      - Effort: [Small/Medium/Large]
   2. **[Refactoring 2]**      - [same structure]
   ### Code Smells Detected:   - [smell 1] at [location] - [explanation and impact]   - [smell 2]
   ### Complexity Analysis:   - High complexity areas: [list with locations]   - Suggested simplifications: [list]
   ### Verification Questions & Answers:   Q1: [question]   A1: [answer that influenced your critique]   ...
Provide specific, actionable feedback with code examples.

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.

Phase 3: Cross-Review & Debate

After receiving all three judge reports:

Synthesize the findings:
- Identify areas of agreement
- Identify contradictions or disagreements
- Note gaps in any review
Conduct debate session (if significant disagreements exist):
- Present conflicting viewpoints to judges
- Ask each judge to review the other judges' findings
- Example: "Requirements Validator says approach is overengineered, but Solution Architect says it's appropriate for scale. Please both review this disagreement and provide reasoning."
- Use Task tool to spawn follow-up agents that have context of previous reviews
Reach consensus:
- Synthesize the debate outcomes
- Identify which viewpoints are better supported
- Document any unresolved disagreements with "reasonable people may disagree" notation

Phase 4: Generate Consensus Report

Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:

markdown

# 🔍 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]*

# 🔍 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]*

Important Guidelines

Be Objective: Base assessments on evidence, not preferences
Be Specific: Always cite file locations, line numbers, and code examples
Be Constructive: Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement
Be Balanced: Acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses
Be Actionable: Provide concrete recommendations with examples
Consider Context: Account for project constraints, team size, timelines
Avoid Bias: Don't favor certain patterns/styles without justification

Usage Examples

bash

# 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

# 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

Notes

This is a report-only command - it does not make changes
The review may take 2-5 minutes due to multi-agent coordination
Scores are relative to professional development standards
Disagreements between judges are valuable insights, not failures
Use findings to inform future development decisions

來源與署名

來源：NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit位於antigravity/skills/critique提交23e2428

授權條款：無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架

Critique

Work Critique Command

Your Workflow

Phase 1: Context Gathering

Phase 2: Independent Judge Reviews (Parallel)

Judge 1: Requirements Validator

Judge 2: Solution Architect

Judge 3: Code Quality Reviewer

Phase 3: Cross-Review & Debate

Phase 4: Generate Consensus Report

Important Guidelines

Usage Examples

Notes

來源與署名

更多來自 NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit 的技能

Write Tests

Tree Of Thoughts

Write Concisely

Test Prompt

Update Docs

Test Skill

更多Software Development技能

Playground

M5 Onboard

Cardputer Buddy

Web Design Guidelines

Vercel React Native Skills

Vercel React Best Practices