| 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:
- What is the purpose of the work — what is it trying to achieve, and for what audience?
- Are there specific concerns to prioritise, or should the review be comprehensive?
- 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)
