Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
Critique a written proposal or design artifact via 5 philosophical personas in parallel, with consensus synthesis.
user-invocable
true
argument-hint
<proposals to critique, or 'generate N ideas about X'>
allowed-tools
["Read","Bash","Glob","Grep","Agent"]
context
fork
routing
{"triggers":["critique these ideas","multi-persona review","philosophical critique","devil's advocate on ideas","stress test proposals","evaluate from multiple perspectives","get different viewpoints","critique proposals","roast code","devil's advocate","stress test idea","roast this","stress test this idea","poke holes in this"],"not_for":"speaking to a person, a meeting, or pushing back in a conversation — that is professional-communication. This critiques an artifact, not interpersonal messaging.","pairs_with":["decision-helper"],"complexity":"Complex","category":"analysis"}
Multi-Persona Critique: Parallel Philosophical Review of Proposals
Overview
This skill takes a set of proposals — feature ideas, architectural decisions, design choices, strategy options — and sends ALL of them to 5 distinct intellectual personas for parallel, independent critique. Each persona brings a different philosophical lens. The skill then synthesizes all critiques into a consensus report showing where personas agree, where they disagree, and what the disagreements reveal.
This is NOT the roast skill. Key differences:
roast critiques CODE with HackerNews personas and validates file:line claims
This skill critiques IDEAS/PROPOSALS with philosophical/methodological personas and evaluates logical coherence, practical viability, and human impact
roast is evidence-based (checking actual code); this is argument-based (evaluating reasoning)
Key constraints baked into the workflow:
Every persona sees ALL proposals — no cherry-picking
Personas run in parallel with no awareness of each other — independence is the source of value
Ratings are mandatory: STRONG / PROMISING / WEAK / REJECT for every proposal from every persona
Rankings are mandatory: each persona orders proposals from strongest to weakest
Fairness mandate: genuine strengths must be acknowledged, genuine weaknesses explained with precision
Disagreements are preserved, not averaged away — the disagreements ARE the insight
The synthesis phase adds cross-cutting analysis, it does not edit persona outputs
Reference Loading Table
Signal
Load These Files
Why
example-driven tasks, errors
examples-and-errors.md
Loads detailed guidance from examples-and-errors.md.
dispatching the five critique personas (Phase 2)
personas.md
Loads detailed guidance from personas.md.
writing the Phase 5 synthesis report
synthesis-template.md
Loads detailed guidance from synthesis-template.md.
roast-style code critique with HN personas
roast.md
Loads the roast workflow: evidence-based critique via 5 HN personas with claim validation.
HN persona specs, claim format, validation verdicts
hn-personas.md
Loads HN commenter persona specifications, prompt template, and claim format.
Instructions
Phase 1: UNDERSTAND PROPOSALS
Goal: Extract or generate clear, numbered proposals ready for critique.
Step 1: Determine input mode
Input
Action
User provides proposals directly
Extract and number them
User says "generate N ideas about X"
Research the domain, read relevant code/docs, then generate proposals
Ambiguous input
Ask user to clarify before proceeding
Step 2: Normalize proposals
Each proposal must be a clear, self-contained description (2-4 sentences) that any of the 5 personas can evaluate independently. If user-provided proposals are vague, expand them to include:
What the proposal does
Why it matters (the problem it solves)
How it differs from the status quo
If generating proposals, research the domain first:
Use Glob and Grep to understand existing code, docs, and architecture
Use Read to examine key files relevant to the domain
Generate proposals grounded in actual context, not hypotheticals
Step 3: Number and present
Present the numbered proposal list back to the user before proceeding. Format:
Gate: Numbered list of proposals ready. Each proposal is self-contained with 2-4 sentences. Proceed only when gate passes.
Phase 2: BRIEF PERSONAS
Goal: Construct prompts for each of the 5 personas.
Load the full persona specifications from ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/personas.md. For each persona, construct a prompt containing an identity block, the numbered proposals, rating and ranking requirements, a fairness mandate, and the structured output format — see ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md (Phase 2: Persona Prompt Construction) for the complete construction recipe.
Gate: 5 persona prompts constructed, each containing all proposals and the full persona specification. Proceed only when gate passes.
Phase 3: DISPATCH (Parallel)
Goal: Launch all 5 personas in parallel and collect independent critiques.
Launch 5 agents using the Agent tool, one per persona. Each agent runs independently with no awareness of other personas.
The 5 parallel agents:
The Logician (Bertrand Russell)
Focus: Logical coherence, hidden assumptions, falsifiability, necessity vs novelty
The Pragmatic Builder (20-year staff engineer)
Focus: Build cost vs value, maintenance burden, simpler alternatives, user need
The Systems Purist (Edsger Dijkstra)
Focus: Accidental complexity, separation of concerns, elegance, failure modes
The End User Advocate (8-hours-a-day tool user)
Focus: Daily impact, friction, delight, whether the problem is already solved
The Skeptical Philosopher (Illich/Postman/Franklin)
Focus: Human agency, dependency risk, genuine vs manufactured problems, unintended consequences
Each agent must produce:
A rating (STRONG / PROMISING / WEAK / REJECT) for every proposal with 2-3 sentence justification
A ranked list of all proposals from strongest to weakest
Any cross-cutting observations that apply to multiple proposals
CRITICAL: Wait for ALL 5 agents to complete before proceeding to Phase 4. Do not begin synthesis on partial results. Every persona must contribute before consensus can be determined.
Gate: All 5 persona reports received. Each report contains ratings for all proposals and a ranked list. Proceed only when gate passes.
Phase 4: SYNTHESIZE
Goal: Build a consensus matrix and identify agreement, disagreement, and cross-cutting patterns.
Step 1: Build the consensus matrix
Create a matrix: proposals (rows) x personas (columns) x ratings. See the consensus matrix template in ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md.
Step 2: Classify consensus patterns
For each proposal, classify:
CONSENSUS (4+ personas agree within one tier): Strong signal
CONTESTED (2-3 split): The disagreement itself is informative
OUTLIER (1 disagrees with 4): Worth understanding why one persona sees differently
Step 3: Extract disagreement specifics
For CONTESTED and OUTLIER proposals, extract the specific disagreement:
What does each side see that the other does not?
Is the disagreement about values (what matters) or facts (what is true)?
Does one persona have domain-relevant insight the others lack?
For each proposal: sum all 5 ratings, giving a score from 0-15.
Step 5: Rank proposals by consensus score
Sort proposals from highest to lowest weighted score. Note ties and what distinguishes tied proposals.
Gate: Consensus matrix complete with classifications, disagreement analysis, and ranked scores. Proceed only when gate passes.
Phase 5: PRESENT
Goal: Deliver the synthesis report using the template from ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/synthesis-template.md.
Load the synthesis template and populate all 7 sections (Consensus Matrix; Features to Build; Worth Investigating; Interesting Disagreements; Shelve; Cross-Cutting Insights; Deepest Insight). See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md (Phase 5: Synthesis Report Sections) for each section's purpose and score-band criteria.
Gate: Report complete with all sections populated. Critique done.
Examples, Error Handling, and Detection
See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md for:
