goat-critique

name	goat-critique
description	Use when a decision or analysis needs multi-lens critique to surface blind spots before shipping.
goat-flow-skill-version	1.11.0

/goat-critique

Shared Conventions

Read .goat-flow/skill-docs/skill-preamble.md and .goat-flow/skill-docs/skill-conventions.md for shared conventions before proceeding.

When to Use

Use when a concrete artifact deserves multi-perspective critique before shipping: plan, security assessment, debug hypotheses, review findings, test strategy, architecture proposal, or refactor approach.

Use when:

• The stakes justify structured critique before shipping
• You have a concrete artifact to critique (not vague ideas)
• You want competing perspectives, not just validation
• Called by another goat-* skill or directly by the user

NOT this skill (pre-invocation routing): Use when deciding which skill to invoke, not after explicit invocation.

• No artifact exists yet → create one first (goat-review, goat-debug, etc.)
• Simple factual question → answer directly
• Trivial artifact (hotfix, single-file change) → consider goat-review instead (pre-invocation only; once /goat-critique is invoked, it runs the full protocol regardless of size — see "Direct invocation is binding" below)

Excuse	Reality
"The artifact is trivial - a quick critique would cover it"	Quick mode was tried and removed. A single reviewer running lens passes in one context is self-talk under three labels, not multi-perspective critique.
"All three agents agree so it must be right"	Consensus without orchestrator verification is unverified self-declaration. The orchestrator's job is to verify claims, not count votes.
"Inline role-play is faster than spawning agents"	Agents that role-play SKEPTIC/ANALYST/STRATEGIST inline produce indistinguishable perspectives. Isolated context is what makes findings independent.
"Closing checks happen after the main answer - skip them"	End-of-task rules have near-zero voluntary compliance. Phase 5.5 meta-audit and outcome capture exist because post-deliverable steps get skipped.

Direct invocation is binding. $goat-critique or /goat-critique runs Phases 1-5 plus mandatory post-synthesis steps (5.5, 5.6). Dispatcher ambiguity rules do not override direct invocation; raise scope concerns after synthesis.

Report-only by default. $goat-critique make X shorter = critique only; $goat-critique ... then apply it = critique first, apply after gate. See Constraints for mutation and apply rules.

Step 0 - Intake

goat-critique runs in one mode: full delegated, Phases 1-5 plus 5.5 meta-audit and 5.6 outcome capture, three critique sub-agents plus one lightweight meta-agent. Lighter-mode suggestions are the failure this design prevents.

Intake checklist:

• Confirm the artifact exists and is concrete (a file, a plan document, a specific set of findings - not a vague idea).
• Select the critique rubric for the artifact type (see Critique Rubrics below). If unclear, ask the user.
• Use the preamble's learning-loop retrieval on relevant .goat-flow/learning-loop/footguns/ and .goat-flow/learning-loop/lessons/; record explicit misses instead of broad-loading buckets.
• Delegation consent: proceed directly to Phase 1. Skill-chained entry: skip intake confirmation, use caller context; still run retrieval + rubric selection. All phases (1-5 + 5.5 + 5.6) always run.
• Differential mode detection: Check .goat-flow/logs/critiques/ for prior critiques of the same artifact slug within 30 days. If found, offer differential mode: A/B receive prior log + artifact diff; C stays cold. Phase 5 adds delta counts and [diff-of: <prior-uuid>].
• Read context map: Read the selected rubric's context map (see references/rubric-examples.md) and pass to each sub-agent's spawn directive.

Phase 1 - Generate Competing Critiques

Spawn all three sub-agents in parallel using the host's real delegation mechanism.

Context varies intentionally - informational diversity catches more than tonal diversity.

The Core Trio Lens

Agents A and B both use the SKEPTIC/ANALYST/STRATEGIST combined lens. These three perspectives work as a unit - never split them into separate agents:

• SKEPTIC - "What could go wrong? What assumptions are unproven? What's the worst-case scenario?"
• ANALYST - "What does the evidence actually say? What's the cost/benefit? What do the numbers and code paths tell us?"
• STRATEGIST - "What's the fastest path to shipping? What can we defer? What's the highest-leverage change?"

All three perspectives must appear in every critique from Agents A and B. The tension between them is the point.

Context split:

Agent	Reads	Does NOT read
A (Risk)	artifact + architecture.md + targeted INDEX-first footgun/lesson hits + rubric	git history, config.yaml
B (Alternatives)	artifact + architecture.md + git log --oneline -20 + config.yaml + rubric	footguns, lessons
C (Fresh Eyes)	artifact + rubric ONLY	everything else (isolation enforced)

Sub-Agent Definitions

Full directives: references/sub-agent-directives.md.

• A (Risk): SKEPTIC/ANALYST/STRATEGIST on risks, 2nd-order impacts, fastest safe path. Must cite downstream files by name.
• B (Alternatives): SKEPTIC/ANALYST/STRATEGIST on alternatives, ranked by implementation friction. Must surface at least one alternative.
• C (Fresh Eyes): No project context. Flags unstated assumptions. ISOLATION RULE enforced.

Each sub-agent MUST return 3-7 findings, each with: title, severity, evidence (file + semantic anchor), confidence, Proof attempt, Proof class (RUNTIME | CONTRACT-GREP | STATIC | NOT-REPRODUCED), Evidence quality (OBSERVED/INFERRED/UNVERIFIED), SKEPTIC/ANALYST/STRATEGIST lines, and rubric dimensions covered. Plus: overall assessment (STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK/FLAWED) and one thing the artifact gets RIGHT.

Lens-finding floor: each lens must surface >= 1 finding per sub-agent or re-run once; convergence allowed after one re-run. See anti-fabrication constraint. Full floor spec in the sub-agent directives reference pack.

Phase 2 - Rank and Compare

Execute in this order:

1. Context leak scan. Grep Agent C output for .goat-flow/, goat-*, architecture.md, config.yaml, or project-specific namespace references. Only flag references absent from Agent C's input. Untraceable match = CONTEXT LEAK; discard and re-spawn stricter. Framework-self exemption: for artifacts inside .goat-flow/, skills/goat-*, or a goat-flow instruction file, skip .goat-flow/ and goat-* term scans. Check only structural navigation leaks: file paths, config keys, or architecture sections absent from the input.

1b. Completeness gate. Verify each sub-agent returned required fields (see Constraints). Incomplete → re-spawn once.

2. Classify each finding: Consensus (≥2 agents, severity within ±1), Split (≥2 agents, severity differs ≥2 levels or explicit reject vs blocking), Unique (one agent only). Silence is not a dismiss; treat as Unique.

3. Score each sub-agent's critique on five axes: Grounding (file + semantic anchor evidence?), Specificity (concrete?), Actionability (clear next step?), Coverage (rubric dimensions addressed?), Calibration (severity matches evidence?).

4. Verify sub-agent dimension coverage. Skim each agent's findings; confirm each claimed dimension has substantive content. Demote unsubstantiated claims. Use orchestrator-verified dimensions as input to step 5.

5. Compute rubric coverage gates. Unaddressed mandatory dimensions → auto-generate HIGH coverage-gap finding. Unaddressed optional → auto-generate MEDIUM.

6. Spot-check OBSERVED claims. For each finding marked OBSERVED, re-read the cited file + semantic anchor or proof artifact. Findings that fail spot-check get tagged [evidence-gap: spot-check failed]; Phase 3 decides retract or upgrade.

7. Label control group deltas. For fresh-eyes-only findings, orchestrator assigns: CONTEXT DRIFT (wrong due to missing context), READABILITY GAP (valid for any reader), or CONTEXT-LIMITED (may be valid, cannot fully evaluate).

Phase 3 - Cross-Examine

Early exit: If Phase 2 yields zero split findings and zero unique HIGH/CRITICAL findings, skip Phase 3. Note "no disputes - full consensus" in output and proceed to Phase 4.

If splits + unique HIGH/CRITICAL exceed the cross-examination budget, batch multiple disputes into a single agent prompt. Triage by severity - CRITICAL and HIGH first.

For each split finding, spawn a cross-exam agent: "Agent A says [X], Agent B says [Y]. Which is correct given the actual codebase?"

For unique HIGH/CRITICAL findings, spawn verification: "Only one critique raised [finding]. Genuine blind spot or false positive?"

Mark each: RESOLVED (with winner) / STILL DISPUTED / RETRACTED (false positive confirmed).

Phase 4 - Clarify

Persist before gate: Write Phase 1-3 results to .goat-flow/logs/critiques/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<HHMM>-<artifact-slug>-<rand5>.md - delegation evidence (ids/handles, calls/limit, unavailable markers), summaries, matrix, cross-exams. Runs even on Phase 3 early exit.

Before synthesising, present the unresolved items to the human conversationally.

Opener: Lead with a one-line summary of how many decisions are needed and their titles. Example: "3 decisions before synthesis: (1) SEC-01 severity, (2) remediation path, (3) attacker model scope."

Per-question format: Q[N]: [decision]? (A) [option] (B) [option] Default: [A/B]. Background: [1 sentence].

Compact table (3+ questions): | # | Decision | Option A (default) | Option B | Why |. Follow with: "Reply with numbers to override defaults; or approve to proceed."

Question types: (1) Disputes from Phase 3, (2) Trade-offs with two valid approaches, (3) Context drift findings - intentional vs oversight.

Closer: After all questions, end with: "Reply with your picks (e.g. 'A, B, go with defaults on the rest') or push back on any framing."

If questions exist: BLOCKING GATE - STOP and wait for human response. If no questions (full consensus, no trade-offs, no context drift): CHECKPOINT - note "no disputes - proceeding to synthesis" and continue.

Phase 5 - Synthesise

Produce the prime critique. Lead with a Verdict block:

• Gate: BLOCK | CONCERNS | CLEAN - derived from surviving findings: any CRITICAL → BLOCK, any HIGH (no CRITICAL) → CONCERNS, else CLEAN
• Assessment: STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK / FLAWED (synthesised from sub-agent assessments and cross-examination outcomes)
• Risk level: LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL
• Top 1-3 blockers (if any) - one line each, linked to findings below
• If differential mode: append delta block (Resolved: N | Regressed: M | New: K | Unchanged: J vs prior critique)

Then the full critique:

• Consensus findings (preserved as-is)
• Resolved split findings (with resolution rationale)
• Human-directed findings (from Phase 4 clarification responses)
• Verified unique findings (survived cross-examination)
• Retracted findings (listed so user sees what was considered and dismissed)

Open questions: Items with INFERRED-only evidence, inconclusive single-agent findings, or unvalidated assumptions go here - not as recommendations. Each open question states: confidence, evidence needed to resolve, revisit trigger.

Blind spot check: List unaddressed artifact sections, unmapped rubric aspects, and unread referenced files as "What Wasn't Critiqued." Must never be empty.

Proof Gate: Apply the Proof Gate (see Constraints) to every synthesised finding before inclusion. Every synthesised finding must carry proof class RUNTIME | CONTRACT-GREP | STATIC | NOT-REPRODUCED.

Phase 5.5 - Meta-audit. Spawn a lightweight meta-agent (budget: 2 tool calls, no context beyond the draft Phase 5 output). Audit the critique for internal consistency against the 10-point rubric in references/rubric-examples.md. If issues found, insert an ## Auto-Detected Issues block before presenting. Verdict block updated with Meta-score: N/100.

BLOCKING GATE: Present the synthesised critique (including Meta-score if 5.5 produced one). "Options: (A) apply, (B) dig deeper, (C) re-run, (D) close. Default: D." After plan critique, suggest /goat-plan.

Phase 5.6 - Outcome capture. After the human picks A/B/C/D, tag each surviving finding: accepted | rejected | deferred | partial. Default: option (A) → all accepted; option (D) → all deferred. Persisted to the critique log under ## Outcomes.

Integration hooks. Populate from surviving findings when applicable:

• for-goat-plan - milestone updates, reordering
• for-goat-debug - hypothesis seeds, evidence to capture
• for-implementation - immediate fixes, deferred items

Empty sections collapsed to none.

Critique Rubrics

The rubric determines what sub-agents evaluate. Match to artifact type. Dimensions marked [M] are mandatory (unaddressed → auto-HIGH coverage-gap finding); dimensions marked [O] are optional (unaddressed → auto-MEDIUM). Each rubric has a context map (A/B/C file assignments) in references/rubric-examples.md; Step 0 reads the selected map.

Plan: correctness against codebase [M], integration safety [M], sequencing quality [M], validation coverage [O], task specificity [O] Security assessment: threat model completeness [M], exploitability calibration [M], attack surface coverage [M], framework mitigation accuracy [O], data flow quality [O] Debug hypotheses: hypothesis diversity [M], evidence quality (OBSERVED vs INFERRED) [M], elimination rigour [M], confidence calibration [O], reproduction completeness [O] Review findings: severity calibration [M], diff coverage [M], pre-existing separation [M], false positive rate [O], cross-reference impact [O] Test strategy: coverage gaps [M], risk-proportionate depth [M], doer-verifier separation [O], manual test specificity [O], mock awareness [O] Architecture/refactor: blast radius accuracy [M], migration safety [M], backward compatibility [M], dependency impact [O], rollback feasibility [O] Generic (fallback): internal consistency [M], evidence grounding [M], scope completeness [M], feasibility [M], risk identification [M]. All dimensions mandatory for the fallback rubric. If using the generic rubric, state why no specific rubric matched and which was closest.

Constraints

• MUST run in one mode: full delegated, Phases 1-5 plus 5.5/5.6, three critique sub-agents plus one meta-agent. 5.5 runs before the human gate; 5.6 after the human responds. Quick/lite modes were removed: single-context lenses are self-talk, not multi-perspective critique.
• Explicit $goat-critique or /goat-critique invocation IS consent to spawn sub-agents and the full protocol. Do NOT ask again.
• Report-only by default. Do not mutate the target artifact or committed files unless the user separately says to apply, edit, update, fix, or otherwise implement. If interrupted, freeze writes.
• MUST Spawn all three sub-agents in a single parallel batch. Sequential spawning loses the informational-diversity benefit.
• MUST set max 5 tool-call budget per critique sub-agent; log calls/limit when exposed, otherwise unavailable markers. Do not claim mechanical enforcement when counts are unavailable.
• MUST log per spawned critique/cross-exam/meta agent: id/handle if exposed, calls/limit, or unavailable markers.
• MUST Scan Agent C output for context leaks before any other Phase 2 work. Only flag references absent from the input artifact. Any untraceable match = CONTEXT LEAK; discard and re-spawn.
• MUST Check sub-agent completeness: verify each sub-agent returned 3-7 findings plus required lens fields, severity, evidence, confidence, proof class, rubric dimensions, and overall assessment. Incomplete → re-spawn once; if still incomplete, record sub-agent completeness limited.
• MUST enforce cross-examination budget: Max 3 cross-examination agents total, max 3 tool calls per agent.
• Recommendations are never auto-applied. After synthesis, stop. Do not enter implementation mode unless the user explicitly asks to apply changes.
• MUST apply the Proof Gate from skill-preamble.md to every synthesised finding and preserve one proof class tag (RUNTIME | CONTRACT-GREP | STATIC | NOT-REPRODUCED) on each. Sub-agent reports are inputs to verify, not evidence to launder. Re-read applies to findings surviving to Phase 5 (typically 3-7 after Phase 3/4 filtering), not to all findings raised in Phase 1.
• MUST NOT fabricate findings. Do not fabricate findings to meet the lens-finding floor; convergence allowed after one re-run.
• Universal constraints from skill-preamble.md apply.

Output Format

Terse-first directive: Informational sections (Sub-Agent Comparison Matrix, Retracted Findings, What Wasn't Critiqued) default to terse: one sentence per bullet, no qualifiers, no closing offers. Gate prompts and evidence-tagged findings retain full detail.

## Verdict  <!-- includes Gate: BLOCK|CONCERNS|CLEAN + Meta-score -->
## Delegation Evidence  <!-- ids/handles + tool-call counts or unavailable markers -->
## Critique Rubric
## Sub-Agent Comparison Matrix
## Sub-Agent Rankings
## Rubric Coverage Gaps
## Control Group Delta
## Validated Findings  <!-- source pool for Recommended Changes; every finding includes proof class -->
## Cross-Examination Results
## Auto-Detected Issues  <!-- from Phase 5.5 meta-audit, if any -->
## Retracted Findings
## Human Decisions
## Strengths
## Recommended Changes  <!-- subset of Validated Findings; ordered by severity; each with concrete action and proof class -->
## Open Questions
## Integration Hooks  <!-- for-goat-plan, for-goat-debug, for-implementation -->
## What Wasn't Critiqued
## Outcomes  <!-- Phase 5.6: per-finding accepted|rejected|deferred|partial -->