feedback

name	feedback
version	1.0
description	Delivers structured, constructive critique of written work, arguments, decisions, or plans. Findings are specific, evidence-grounded, and paired with actionable recommendations. Use when asked to review, critique, assess, or improve any piece of work where quality feedback is the goal.

Skill: Feedback

When Not to Use

• When the task is to rewrite or produce new content rather than evaluate existing content — produce the new version first, then apply this skill
• When the work is a final legal, compliance, or regulated deliverable requiring professional review — structured feedback is appropriate, but this skill cannot substitute for specialist sign-off
• When unsolicited critique would be inappropriate given the context (e.g., personal creative work shared for enjoyment, not evaluation)

---

Interaction Protocol

Before starting, ask if not already clear:

1. What is the purpose of the work — what is it trying to achieve, and for what audience?
2. Are there specific concerns to prioritise, or should the review be comprehensive?
3. What level of critique is appropriate — high-level structural, line-level, or both?

Output style:

• Group findings by category (Structure, Argument/Logic, Clarity, Accuracy, Completeness, Style)
• Assign each finding a priority: Critical, Major, Minor, or Suggestion
• For every finding: state the specific problem, identify its location or instance, explain the consequence, and give a concrete recommended change
• End with a summary: total findings by priority, the work's key strengths, and the single highest-leverage improvement
• Do not produce generic encouragement — observations that do not identify a specific problem or produce an actionable recommendation are not findings

---

Inputs and Outputs

Input: The work to be reviewed (text, argument, plan, decision, or document), with optional context: stated purpose, audience, and specific concerns
Output: Structured findings grouped by category, each with priority, location, problem, consequence, and recommendation; overall summary with key strengths
Composability: Use after strategy-author, research, or technical-writer (to evaluate their output); use alongside citation-discipline (to assess sourcing quality); use before remove-ai-slop (to identify structural issues before prose cleaning)

---

Purpose

Produce specific, evidence-grounded feedback that enables the author to improve their work in concrete ways. Every finding must be tied to an observable problem in the work — not preference, taste, or convention for its own sake.

---

1. Review Categories

Apply all relevant categories. Skip a category only if it is entirely inapplicable to the work type.

1.1 Structure

• Does the work have a clear beginning, middle, and end appropriate to its type and purpose?
• Is the order of information logical — does earlier content provide what later content requires?
• Are sections proportionate to their importance?
• Is anything present that serves no structural function?

1.2 Argument and Logic

• Is the central claim or thesis clear and explicitly stated?
• Do the supporting points actually support the central claim?
• Are there gaps in the reasoning where steps are skipped or assumed?
• Are there contradictions between different parts of the work?
• Are conclusions supported by the evidence presented, or do they exceed it?

1.3 Clarity

• Would a reader in the stated audience understand this without additional context?
• Are key terms defined where necessary?
• Are ambiguous pronouns, vague references, or unclear antecedents present?
• Are sentences or paragraphs doing too much — trying to communicate multiple distinct ideas at once?

1.4 Accuracy

• Are factual claims correct and appropriately supported?
• Are there statements that overstate or misrepresent the evidence?
• Are assumptions stated explicitly, or are they embedded without acknowledgment?

1.5 Completeness

• Does the work address what it sets out to address?
• Are there obvious objections, alternatives, or failure modes not acknowledged?
• Are necessary prerequisites, context, or definitions missing?

1.6 Style and Tone

• Is the tone appropriate for the audience and purpose?
• Is the language register consistent throughout?
• Are there patterns that reduce impact: hedging, filler phrases, passive constructions where active would be stronger?

---

2. Priority Classification

Assign each finding one of the following:

Priority	Criteria
Critical	The work fails its purpose or misleads the reader if this is not addressed
Major	The work is substantially weakened, confusing, or incomplete without this fix
Minor	The work would be meaningfully improved, but functions without the change
Suggestion	An optional improvement that may or may not fit the author's intent

---

3. Finding Format

Each finding must contain:

**[PRIORITY] Category — Short title**

Location: <section, paragraph, sentence, or specific quote>
Problem: What is wrong and why it is wrong.
Consequence: What fails or degrades for the reader if this is not addressed.
Recommendation: Specific change to make.

---

4. Summary Format

End every review with:

## Summary

Findings: X Critical, X Major, X Minor, X Suggestions

**Strengths**: [Two or three specific things the work does well — must be observable, not generic praise]

**Highest-leverage improvement**: [The single change that would most improve the work's effectiveness]

---

5. Consistency Check

Before finalising, verify:

• Every finding has a specific location — no vague "the argument is weak" statements
• Every recommendation is concrete — no "consider improving" without specifying how
• Priority levels are consistent — the same class of problem is not rated Critical in one section and Minor in another
• Strengths identified are genuine and specific, not formulaic reassurance
• Summary counts match the body

---

6. Failure Modes

• Generating generic encouragement that dilutes the signal of genuine findings
• Flagging stylistic preferences as structural failures
• Assigning Critical priority without demonstrating a concrete failure for the reader
• Producing findings without a recommended fix
• Omitting the Strengths section — honest feedback includes what is working
• Letting the summary contradict the findings (e.g., calling work "strong" when Critical findings exist)