Writer-Critic Pair

Purpose

Use a two-role agent pattern where a writer or implementer creates the artifact and a critic or reviewer independently challenges it before final delivery.

When to use

Use for complex implementations, risky changes, architecture decisions, high-stakes user communication, ambiguous requirements, security-sensitive work, or any task where same-context self-approval would be too weak.

Inputs

Original task, acceptance criteria, scope boundaries, writer output or diff, validation results, repository conventions, known risks, and time or tool constraints.

Workflow

1. Assign the writer to understand the task, inspect context, propose or implement the smallest correct solution, and report verification honestly.
2. Assign the critic to read the original task and evidence independently before reading the writer's summary.
3. The critic challenges correctness, assumptions, scope, tests, compatibility, safety, and maintainability.
4. The writer responds with a fix plan, applies necessary changes, and records any deferred risks.
5. The critic re-reviews the revised artifact or explicitly states why re-review was not possible.
6. The final owner synthesizes the result and decides whether to ship, revise, or ask for clarification.

Outputs

A handoff with:

• Task: original goal and constraints.
• Writer output: summary, changed files or artifact, and verification run.
• Critic findings: critical, important, and minor findings with evidence.
• Writer response: fixes applied, deferred items, and rationale.
• Re-review: critic result after fixes.
• Final decision: ship, revise, or ask.

Failure modes

• Writer and critic share the same assumptions and miss the same bug.
• Critic rubber-stamps instead of adversarially checking evidence.
• Roles edit the same files concurrently and create conflicting changes.
• Handoff omits validation results or known limitations.
• Critic blocks on taste rather than task risk.
• Final owner ignores unresolved critical findings.

Verification checklist

• Writer and critic responsibilities are distinct.
• Critic reviewed against the original task, not only the writer summary.
• Findings are severity-ranked and evidence-based.
• Writer response addresses or explicitly defers each critical and important finding.
• Final decision reflects re-review status and residual risk.