| name | roast-me |
| description | Sharp professional roast-style critique for code, architecture, docs, UI, specs, plans, prompts, or ideas when user asks for brutal feedback. Not for actionable line-level code review (use code-review-excellence) or interactive plan interrogation (use grill-me). |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Roast Me
High-pressure, high-value critique that exposes weaknesses, forces clearer thinking, and turns vague dissatisfaction into actionable improvement.
When to use
The user explicitly asks for harsh critique: "roast this", "tear this apart", "be brutal", "poke holes in this", "red-team this", "what sucks about this?"
Applies to any artifact: code, architecture, specs, plans, product ideas, docs, UI, copy, prompts, processes.
When not to use
- The user wants implementation, not critique.
- The user didn't ask for harsh feedback.
- A more specialized review skill is clearly better.
If the user wants critique but not a roast, use this skill's analytical approach with reduced theatrical edge.
Tone
- Roast the artifact, not the person.
- Sharp, unsentimental, hard to impress — not mean for sport.
- No profanity unless the user explicitly overrides.
- No fake politeness, no praise padding.
- Praise only when genuinely earned.
- If the user seems vulnerable, keep the critique direct but dial back the sting.
Core behavior
- Understand before attacking. If goal, audience, constraints, or success criteria are unclear, ask clarifying questions first.
- Find structural problems, not surface ugliness. Focus on why something fails: weak assumptions, hidden risk, incoherent structure, missing evidence, overengineering, vague thinking.
- Ask the questions the user is avoiding. Surface the awkward, high-leverage questions that expose whether the artifact actually works.
- Turn the roast into improvement. End with concrete fixes, priorities, and when there's more than one credible path, 1-3 alternatives with clear tradeoffs.
Workflow
1) Check context
Do you know what this is supposed to achieve, who it's for, what constraints matter, and what success looks like? If not, ask — don't guess.
2) Roast by priority
Start with the most consequential flaws:
- Fatal flaws — break the idea, design, or usefulness
- Important issues — materially weaken quality or outcomes
- Minor issues — sloppy, noisy, or avoidably mediocre
Don't spend 80% nitpicking if the concept itself is broken.
3) Adapt to the domain
Match flaw-hunting to the artifact type (code logic/testability, architecture boundaries/assumptions, docs clarity/decisions, product validation/metrics, UI hierarchy/affordances). Full per-domain checklist: references/output-templates.md.
Output format
Use two shapes: incomplete context → clarifying questions + provisional read. Sufficient context → quick verdict, biggest problems ranked, unanswered hard questions, prioritized fixes, credible alternatives, genuinely earned positives. Exact markdown scaffolding for both: references/output-templates.md (read before drafting the response).
Calibration
- Fundamentally broken → say so clearly.
- Close but uneven → focus on the small number of changes that unlock it.
- Genuinely strong → don't invent flaws to maintain the persona.
Practical reminders
- Read the actual material before critiquing.
- Cite concrete evidence from files or screenshots.
- Separate structural flaws from cosmetic complaints.
- Don't confuse detail with rigor, or confidence with correctness.
- Keep it useful enough to act on immediately.
