critique
Skill9 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
This skill reviews research findings with user feedback, Codex, or self-review. You use it to check results or direct more investigation.
80 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- BSchrift/critique.nvimtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Integralist/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- pche-broken-artist/forge-of-thoughttheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- theexperiencecompany/gaiatheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- bas1l/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- synaptiai/agent-capability-standardtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use delight, teach-impeccable and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
HK-hubSkilldelight
Add moments of joy, personality, and unexpected touches that make interfaces memorable and enjoyable to use. Elevates functional to delightful. Use when the user asks to add polish, personality, animations, micro-interactions, delight, or make an interface feel fun or memorable.
Also in 33 projects that use this
HK-hubSkillteach-impeccable
One-time setup that gathers design context for your project and saves it to your AI config file. Run once to establish persistent design guidelines.
Also in 19 projects that use this
zwy123zwySkillnormalize
将用户随意输入的提示词规范化为结构清晰、便于大模型执行的标准化提示词。适用于需要整理、统一提示词格式时调用。
Also in 19 projects that use this
owshq-mecSkilllayout
Improve layout, spacing, and visual rhythm. Fixes monotonous grids, inconsistent spacing, and weak visual hierarchy. Use when the user mentions layout feeling off, spacing issues, visual hierarchy, crowded UI, alignment problems, or wanting better composition.
Also in 8 projects that use this
- +8 more from HK-hub
Other versions80 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 80
- google-gemini/gemini-cli★ 109ksame name
- yournextstore/yournextstore★ 5.5ksame name
- plugin87/ux-ui-agent-skills★ 3.1ksame name
- remorses/critique★ 1.3ksame name
- talesofai/cohub★ 585same name
- educlopez/ui-craft★ 441same name
- nexmoe/DayBee★ 424same name
- nexmoe/eve★ 424same name
- Southclaws/storyden★ 348same name
- 10xChengTu/Mux0★ 337same name
70 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- analyze-paperSkill
- brainstormSkill
- clarify-goalSkill
- formalize-problemSkill
- investigateSkill
- reaperSkill
- review-literatureSkill
- search-paperSkill
- write-paperSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 73 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 77
After deepen or explore cycles, the orchestrator invokes write-paper for an updated report.
- Very specific: line 96
Only unresolved hypotheses from ideas.md.
- Distinctive: line 108
If the MCP call fails or times out, you log the failure and return.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 73 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Critique
You must read and apply the language rules before you write any output.
Usage
You invoke this skill by name with quoted feedback, --codex, or --self. Slash-command hosts use /critique <args>.
critique "dig deeper into the liveness proof gap under partial synchrony"
critique --codex
critique --selfInputs
You always read these sources:
reaper-workspace/notes/current-understanding.mdreaper-workspace/notes/results.mdreaper-workspace/notes/problem-statement.mdreaper-workspace/notes/ideas.mdreaper-workspace/feedbacks/
You read these sources only when a specific question needs them:
reaper-workspace/notes/paper-summary.md, if it exists.reaper-workspace/notes/literature.mdreaper-workspace/papers/
Human Feedback
Quoted feedback selects this mode.
1. Set the Round Number
You check reaper-workspace/feedbacks/round-*.md. N is one greater than the highest existing round, or 1 for the first round.
2. Classify and Save Feedback
You split mixed feedback into distinct requests. You assign one category to each request.
You write reaper-workspace/feedbacks/round-N.md:
# Feedback Round N
**User request**: [You copy the user's feedback exactly.]
**Category**: [scope | deepen | explore | rewrite]
**Action plan**: [You state the required actions.]| Category | Required change |
scope | The feedback changes assumptions, the threat model, or the research question. |
deepen | The feedback requests more evidence for a specific claim or proof step. |
explore | The feedback requests research on a topic that the report does not cover. |
rewrite | The feedback changes only clarity, structure, or presentation. |
3. Act on Feedback
- scope: You return to the orchestrator with a request to run
formalize-problemagain. You do not run investigation cycles yet. - deepen: You invoke the
brainstormskill with the feedback context. You then invoke theinvestigateskill with5. - explore: You search for additional literature if necessary. You update
literature.md, invokebrainstormwith the feedback context, then invokeinvestigatewith5. - rewrite: You return to the orchestrator with a request to run
write-paperagain.
After deepen or explore cycles, the orchestrator invokes write-paper for an updated report.
Codex Consultation (--codex)
You use Codex through MCP for a separate review. You follow ../reaper/references/codex-consultation.md for setup, fallback, context size, and session continuity.
Select a Role
You count existing codex-consultation-*.md files in reaper-workspace/feedbacks/. The next consultation number N follows that count.
For odd N, you ask Codex to challenge the findings. You send these inputs:
- The last five findings from
current-understanding.md, in about 500 words. - A summary of recent results, including keep and discard counts and patterns.
- A review request that names exact claims, concerns, and reasons, including weak evidence, hidden assumptions, or alternative explanations.
For even N, you ask Codex for alternative approaches. You send these inputs:
- The last five findings, in about 500 words.
- Only unresolved hypotheses from
ideas.md. - A request for alternative proof methods, techniques from other fields, and new hypotheses.
You limit context to about 800 words without full workspace files.
Process Feedback
- You save the response to
reaper-workspace/feedbacks/codex-consultation-N.md. - You add a hypothesis for each supported gap or useful alternative technique.
- You continue H numbers from the highest number in
ideas.md. - You tag new hypotheses
[Codex-N]in the Source field. - You record a short explanation for feedback that previous work covers or evidence rejects.
- If the MCP call fails or times out, you log the failure and return.
You use one Codex session ID for the full investigation run. You pass it through sessionId, with a value such as "reaper-critique-<timestamp>".
Self-Review (--self)
You check your own findings for these issues:
- Conflicts: You identify incompatible claims within
current-understanding.mdor between that file andresults.md. - Evidence gaps: You identify unchecked assumptions or weak claims without an identified conflict.
- New questions: You identify questions outside the existing claims and assumptions.
For each issue that needs action, you add a hypothesis with the next H number. You tag it [Self-N] in the Source field. N is one greater than the number of previous self-review rounds. If you add hypotheses, you invoke the investigate skill with 3.
You record self-review findings in cycle logs under reaper-workspace/logs/. You do not create a separate self-review file.
Quality Criteria
- Each investigation and critique loop creates a cycle log. You never change an existing log.
- New hypotheses include source tags:
[Round N],[Codex-N], or[Self-N]. - Additional cycles use the normal investigation process.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

