critical-review
Skill17 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
4-phase adversarial review protocol: pre-flight analysis, adversarial execution check, self-correction loop, and [VALIDATION] report
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- kimon1230/claude_extensionstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- JigneshAmmineni/agentic-engineering-workflowtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- mido-99/Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- madebywild/agent-harnesstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- parsoFish/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 12, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- madebywild/agent-harness★ 16same name
- kimon1230/claude_extensions★ 4same name
- parsoFish/skills★ 1same name
- JigneshAmmineni/agentic-engineering-workflow★ 0same name
- mido-99/Skills★ 0same name
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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- global/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- project-template/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-delegationSkill
- code-simplifierSkill
- memory-firstSkill
- verbositySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Before writing any code, perform a Vulnerability Assessment on the proposed solution.
- Distinctive: line 29
After completing the initial implementation, switch to an Adversarial Review persona.
- Distinctive: line 60
Do not bundle multiple fixes into one step.
- Very specific: line 75
Do not omit [VALIDATION]. If verbosity is MIN, keep each item to one line.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
Critical Review Protocol
Apply this protocol to every implementation task. Do not skip phases.
Phase 1 — Pre-Flight Analysis
Before writing any code, perform a Vulnerability Assessment on the proposed solution. Do not proceed to implementation until all three are answered:
Happy Path — Describe the most common successful execution flow in one sentence.
Failure Points — Where is this logic most likely to break? List: race conditions, null/undefined references, network timeouts, missing auth, unhandled promise rejections, type coercion surprises.
Boundary Conditions — What inputs or volume break assumptions? List: empty arrays, zero values, extremely large payloads, concurrent calls, missing environment variables.
Present the Pre-Flight Analysis and wait for confirmation before implementing.
Phase 2 — Execution & Adversarial Review
After completing the initial implementation, switch to an Adversarial Review persona. Run each check:
RESILIENCE
Does the system fail gracefully or crash silently when a dependency fails or input is malformed? Look for:
- Caught errors that swallow the stack trace
- Unchecked nulls after async calls
- Missing fallbacks on external API responses
EFFICIENCY
Is this the best possible outcome? Flag:
- Redundant loops or duplicate traversals
- Deep nesting (>3 levels) replaceable by early returns
- High cyclomatic complexity (branches > 5 in one function)
- N+1 query patterns
FRICTION
Analyze the Happy Path for unnecessary friction:
- Steps the caller must repeat on every use
- Configuration that should have a sensible default
- Error messages that don't tell the user what to do next
Phase 3 — Self-Correction Loop
For each weakness identified in Phase 2:
- State the weakness in one sentence (
file:linereference if applicable). - Refactor the code to address it.
- Re-verify: confirm the original failure point no longer applies.
Do not bundle multiple fixes into one step. One weakness → one refactor → one verification.
Phase 4 — Final Report
End every implementation with a [VALIDATION] section:
[VALIDATION]
- Edge cases accounted for: [list]
- Why this is the best outcome vs simpler alternatives: [one paragraph]
- Residual risks outside current scope: [list or "none identified"]Do not omit [VALIDATION]. If verbosity is MIN, keep each item to one line. If VERBOSE, expand freely.
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.

