| name | nw-rr-critique-dimensions |
| description | Critique dimensions and scoring for research document reviews |
| user-invocable | false |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Critique Dimensions for Research Review
Load when reviewing research documents. Apply each dimension systematically.
Dimension 1: Source Selection Bias
Check: contradictory viewpoints included? | Multiple organizations/authors/perspectives? | Geographic/temporal diversity? | Sources truly independent (not circular)?
Flags: 60%+ from single org/author -> critical | All supporting same conclusion without counterpoint -> critical | Single geographic region -> medium | Clustered publication dates -> medium
Dimension 2: Evidence Quality
Check: every major claim cited | sources reputable (peer-reviewed, official, established) | primary over secondary | technical sources recent (5 years) | confidence matches evidence
Flags: uncited claim -> high | blog/forum for factual claim -> high | all secondary sources -> medium | sources >5 years for tech -> medium | high confidence with 1-2 sources -> high
Dimension 3: Replicability
Check: search strategy documented | source selection criteria explicit | methodology transparent | confidence levels with rationale
Flags: no methodology section -> high | vague methodology ("searched the web") -> medium | no confidence ratings -> medium
Dimension 4: Priority Validation
For research driving architectural/strategic decisions.
Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck? (timing/measurement data?) | Q2: Simpler alternatives considered and rejected with evidence? | Q3: Constraint prioritization correct? (>50% solution for <30% problem = flag) | Q4: Key decision data-justified?
