self-critique

Self-Critique Skill

What this skill is for

This is the pre-emit gate. Before you hand work back to the user — code, design, docs, a spec, a PR description — silently score it 0-10 across 5 task-appropriate dimensions. If the worst sustained band is below 3, the work is a regression: fix the lowest dimension, rescore, repeat.

This is distinct from reviewing-code:

reviewing-code is the external gate. self-critique is the internal gate that runs first. Both can apply to the same artifact at different lifecycle points.

When to apply

• Output is complex enough that "looks fine to me" isn't enough (architectural decisions, large refactors, security-touching code, public-facing docs)
• You generated something that will be hard to revise after the user reads it (a PR description, an ADR, a release announcement)
• You're tempted to ship faster than you're checking (the LLM-default failure mode)

Skip when:

• Trivial single-line fixes
• Mechanical tasks (dep bump, rename across files)
• The work has already been reviewed by consensus_vote or a human

Scoring bands (universal)

Every dimension uses the same 0-10 scale with these bands. Memorize them.

The 5 dimensions, per task type

Pick the dimension table that matches your task. Each table has 5 dimensions. Score each independently — do not average. The score is the worst sustained band across recent work in that dimension, not an arithmetic mean.

Code (when shipping production code)

Design (UI/UX/visual artifacts)

Per Open Design's original 5 dimensions:

Documentation

Spec / PR description / ADR

Default (anything else)

Scoring discipline

Read these every time. They are the difference between a critique that catches problems and grade-inflation theater.

1. Always cite evidence. Bad: "scored 5 because feels inconsistent." Good: "scored 5 because hero page mixes Playfair display with Inter sans on the same line." Numbers without evidence get rejected.

2. Don't average up. If Hierarchy is 5 because page 3 is broken, don't bump to 7 because pages 1 and 2 are fine. The score is the worst sustained band.

3. Don't grade-inflate. A 7 means strong, not acceptable. If every score is 7+, you're not critiquing — you're rubber-stamping. Aim for honest distribution: most production work scores 5-7 across most dimensions. A 9 should make you suspicious of yourself.

4. Innovation/Restraint allowed to be low. 5/10 on Innovation is fine for production deliverables that don't need to be novel. Don't punish appropriate conservatism.

5. One dimension can fail without the others. A doc can be 9/10 on Accuracy and 4/10 on Discoverability — say so plainly. Don't average away interesting failures.

The pre-emit cycle

Generate output → Score 5 dims → Worst < 3 band? → Yes → Fix lowest → Rescore
                                                  → No  → Emit

Concretely:

1. Pick the dimension table matching your task type.
2. Score each dimension with a 30-80 word evidence paragraph naming specific elements (line numbers, file paths, class names, paragraph excerpts).
3. Identify the lowest score. If it's < 3 (Broken band), the work is a regression. Don't emit.
4. Fix the lowest dimension. Don't try to lift all five — focus on the worst.
5. Rescore that dimension. If now ≥ band 3, proceed to step 6. Otherwise loop.
6. Optional: emit the critique alongside the work for transparency. Format below.

How to invoke

Three invocation paths:

• Manual — user says "self-critique this", "score my output", "5-dim review on what you just produced". Run the cycle.
• Auto-load via skill keyword — when triggers fire (per frontmatter), this skill is available; agent decides to use it.
• Inline as subagent — for high-stakes outputs, the parent agent dispatches a subagent with this skill loaded to score the output independently. Useful when the parent might grade-inflate its own work.

This skill does not auto-fire on every output — that would be context-budget waste on trivial tasks. It fires when the work warrants it.

Output format (when emitting the critique)

## Self-Critique

| Dimension    | Score | Band       | Evidence                                                                                                                  |
| ------------ | ----- | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Correctness  | 7/10  | Strong     | The off-by-one in line 42 was caught by the test added in line 87; remaining edge cases (empty array, null user) covered. |
| Readability  | 6/10  | Functional | Function names are clear, but `process()` at line 23 should be `validateAndPersist()`.                                    |
| Architecture | 5/10  | Functional | Direct adapter call bypasses `UnifiedAdapterRegistry` per CLAUDE.md canonical paths — flagged for follow-up.              |
| Security     | 8/10  | Strong     | Zod at boundary, no secrets in logs, parameterized queries.                                                               |
| Performance  | 7/10  | Strong     | No N+1 patterns; one `readFileSync` in cold-start path is acceptable.                                                     |

**Worst band**: 5/10 (Architecture). Above the 3 threshold; safe to emit. Follow-up issue filed for the canonical-path violation.

Anti-rationalization — Self-critique

Red flags

• All five scores are 7-8 (no honest distribution)
• Evidence paragraphs cite no specific elements
• Score went up after a "fix" with no concrete change in the work
• The lowest dimension is rationalized rather than fixed ("Innovation is supposed to be low here")
• Self-critique used to justify shipping known issues ("scored 4 on Security but it's just a prototype")
• Work emitted with self-critique skipped on a high-stakes output

Verification checklist

• Dimension table matches the task type (code / design / docs / spec / default)
• Each of 5 dimensions has a score AND an evidence paragraph (30-80 words)
• Worst sustained band is ≥ 3 (Functional)
• If a dimension was fixed, the rescore reflects a real change in the work
• If output is emitted with self-critique inline, the table is included in the response
• No grade-inflation — at least one dimension < 8 unless the work is genuinely exceptional