Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
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:
