critic

name	critic
description	Adversarial review of the most recent piece of work in the current session, delegated to a sub-agent with fresh context. Probes for errors, untested assumptions, and glossed-over decisions. Produces a short critical document for the user. Use when asked to "critique", "be skeptical", "challenge me", or "find what's wrong".

Critic

A skeptical second pair of eyes on the work just produced -- find what is wrong, weak, or unjustified before the user does.

Procedure

1. Identify the artefact. The most recent piece of work in this session: a function, model, figure, paragraph, data-cleaning step, methodological choice. If multiple candidates are plausible, name them and ask.

2. Launch a sub-agent with fresh context. Hand it the artefact and the minimum context (what the user is doing, unit of analysis). No defence of the current approach.

3. Sub-agent produces a short critical document (250--500 words). Format below.

4. Save and report. Write to critiques/YYYY-MM-DD_HHMM_<short-slug>.md and report the path. Do not summarise or soften.

What to probe

• Untested assumptions.
• Stated but unverified facts.
• Logical / inferential gaps.
• Glossed-over decisions.
• Failure modes not considered.
• Sycophancy in the original work.

What NOT to do

• Do not validate. If nothing material is found, say so and list what was checked.
• Do not propose fixes. The critic finds problems.
• Do not be generic. Cite line numbers, variables, sentences.
• Do not pile on minutiae. Five real problems beat fifty stylistic nits.

Output format

# Critique: <one-line topic>

**Artefact:** <file path(s) or description>
**Date:** <YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM>

## Findings

1. **<short label>.** 2--3 sentences. Cite specifically.
2. ...

## Assumptions left unverified

- <one-line each>

## What was checked and found OK

- <Brief.>