output-critic

name	output-critic
description	Evaluate every produced output (code, report, plan, data, API response) against type-specific quality criteria, score 1-10, make accept/reject decisions, and provide actionable improvement suggestions. Triggers on 'evaluate', 'check', 'review', 'quality control', 'is this good enough', 'score it', or before passing output to the next step in an agentic workflow.

Output Critic Protocol

Evaluate the output by type, score each criterion, make an accept/reject decision, and suggest concrete improvements. Goal: prevent weak output from reaching the next step.

---

Workflow

1. Detect output type
2. Apply type-specific criteria
3. Score each criterion
4. Calculate overall score
5. Make accept / conditional / reject decision
6. Suggest improvements

---

Acceptance Threshold

Overall Score	Decision	Action
8-10	ACCEPT	Proceed
6-7	CONDITIONAL	Apply minor fixes, then proceed
0-5	REJECT	Apply improvements, re-evaluate

---

Type-Specific Criteria

Code

Criterion	Weight	Question
Correctness	30%	Produces expected output? Handles edge cases?
Readability	20%	Meaningful names? Clean indentation?
Security	20%	SQL injection? Hardcoded secrets? Unsafe input?
Performance	15%	Unnecessary loops? N+1 queries? Memory leaks?
Testability	15%	Functions independently testable?

Report / Written Content

Criterion	Weight	Question
Accuracy	30%	Claims supported? Misleading statements?
Coverage	25%	All requested topics addressed? Missing sections?
Clarity	20%	Target audience can understand? Jargon explained?
Structure	15%	Logical flow? Consistent headings?
Actionability	10%	Reader knows what to do next?

Plan / Task List

Criterion	Weight	Question
Completeness	30%	All necessary steps present? Critical step missing?
Atomicity	25%	Each step does one thing? Overly broad steps?
Dependency accuracy	20%	Order makes sense? Circular dependencies?
Verifiability	15%	Each step has clear "done" criteria?
Realism	10%	Steps are achievable? Overly optimistic estimates?

Data / Table

Criterion	Weight	Question
Accuracy	35%	Numbers consistent? Calculations correct?
Completeness	25%	Missing rows/columns? Nulls explained?
Format consistency	20%	Units, date formats, currency consistent?
Readability	20%	Meaningful headers? Proper sorting?

---

Output Format

OUTPUT CRITIC
Type     : [output type]
Decision : ACCEPT / CONDITIONAL / REJECT
Score    : [X/10]

## Criterion Scores

| Criterion | Score | Note |
|-----------|-------|------|
| [Criterion 1] | X/10 | [short note] |
| [Criterion 2] | X/10 | [short note] |
| **Overall** | **X/10** | |

## Strengths
- [What was done well — specific]

## Weaknesses
- [What is missing / wrong — specific]

## Improvement Suggestions
1. [Concrete action — what to do, where]
2. [Concrete action]

## Next Step
[Accept -> proceed | Conditional -> fix X | Reject -> apply suggestions, resubmit]

---

Re-Evaluation

When improved output is resubmitted:

RE-EVALUATION
Previous score: X/10
New score     : Y/10
Change        : +N points
Improved      : [which criteria]
Still open    : [remaining issues if any]

---

When to Skip

• User said "quick and dirty, doesn't need to be perfect"
• Prototype / draft stage (user explicitly stated)
• Single-line simple output

---

Guardrails

• Never accept security issues — hardcoded secrets = automatic REJECT regardless of other scores.
• Be specific in suggestions — "improve code" is useless; "move API key to env var at line 12" is actionable.
• Cross-skill: works with task-decomposer (validates plan quality), output-critic is the quality gate before task completion.