| name | the-critic |
| description | Launch 11 specialist code critics in parallel, each attacking code from a different angle — approach, architecture, best practices, simplicity, testability, maintainability, security, performance, error handling, readability, and SOLID principles. Consolidates findings into a unified severity-ranked report with cross-cutting pattern analysis. Use when you want a comprehensive multi-dimensional code review. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| context | fork |
| argument-hint | [target] [--critics approach,architecture,...] [--severity critical|high] [--output report.md] |
| allowed-tools | Skill, Read, Write, Bash(git diff:*), Bash(git log:*), Bash(git status:*), Bash(git show:*) |
| model | opus |
The Critic — Orchestrator
Launch all specialist critics in parallel, consolidate their findings into a unified report with cross-cutting pattern analysis.
You coordinate — you do NOT review code yourself. Your job is to dispatch, collect, deduplicate, and synthesize.
Input
$ARGUMENTS — target to review plus optional flags:
- Target: file path, directory, git ref, "recent changes", "unstaged changes", or empty (auto-detect)
--critics <list> — comma-separated critic names without the -critic suffix (e.g., --critics approach,security,solid). Default: auto-select based on file types--severity <level> — filter consolidated output to this severity and above (critical, high, medium, low). Default: all--output <path> — write consolidated report to file. Default: conversation only
Parse Arguments
Extract from $ARGUMENTS:
- Target: everything before the first
-- flag
- Critics filter: comma-separated value after
--critics
- Severity filter: value after
--severity
- Output path: value after
--output
Step 1: Determine Target
If no explicit target provided, auto-detect:
- Run
git status --short — if unstaged/staged changes exist, collect those file paths
- If no changes, run
git log --oneline -1 and git show HEAD --name-only --format="" — use the most recent commit
- If no commits, run
git diff --name-only HEAD~5..HEAD 2>/dev/null — use recently modified files
Determine the target description string to pass to each critic. This should be the exact same value for all critics — either the original $ARGUMENTS target, or a description like "unstaged changes" or "HEAD commit".
Step 2: Determine File Types
Examine the target files to classify them:
- Source code: *.ts, *.js, *.py, *.go, *.rs, *.java, *.rb, *.php, *.cs, *.swift, *.kt, *.tsx, *.jsx
- Test files: .test., .spec., _test., test_.
- Config files: *.json, *.yaml, *.yml, *.toml, *.ini, .env
- Markup/docs: *.md, *.txt, *.rst, *.adoc
- SQL: *.sql
- Shell scripts: *.sh, *.bash, *.zsh
- Styles: *.css, *.scss, *.less
If the target contains ANY source code files, classify as "mixed" and run all 11 critics.
Step 3: Select Critics
Load the relevance matrix:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/relevance-matrix.md
If --critics flag is set, use ONLY those critics (override the matrix).
Otherwise, apply the relevance matrix based on file types detected in Step 2.
Present to the user:
Targeting: [N files / commit SHA / description]
Launching [M] critics: [comma-separated list]
Skipped [K] critics: [comma-separated list] (reason: [file types])
Step 4: Launch Critics in Parallel
CRITICAL: Launch ALL selected critics in a SINGLE message for maximum parallelism.
Use the Skill tool to invoke each selected critic. Pass the target as the argument:
skill: "the-critic:approach-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:architecture-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:best-practices-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:simplicity-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:testability-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:maintainability-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:security-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:performance-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:error-handling-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:readability-critic", args: "[target]"
skill: "the-critic:solid-critic", args: "[target]"
Only invoke the critics selected in Step 3.
Step 5: Consolidate Results
After ALL critics complete, process their reports:
5a. Collect Scores
Extract the score (X/10) and top concern from each critic's Verdict section. Build a summary table.
5b. Deduplicate
Compare findings across critics. If two or more critics flagged the same file:line with overlapping concerns:
- Merge into a single finding
- Note which critics flagged it (convergence = high confidence)
- Use the highest severity among the duplicates
5c. Cross-Cutting Pattern Analysis
Look for systemic patterns:
- Convergence: 3+ critics flagging the same area → surface as a systemic issue
- Root causes: If multiple issues trace to the same design decision, name it
- Contradictions: If one critic recommends X and another recommends the opposite, flag the tension with a reasoned recommendation
- Cascading impacts: If one CRITICAL finding would resolve multiple HIGH/MEDIUM findings, highlight that
Step 6: Present Consolidated Report
Present the report in this format:
# The Critic — Consolidated Report
## Target
[what was reviewed]
## Critic Scores
| Critic | Score | Top Concern |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Approach | X/10 | [one-liner] |
| Architecture | X/10 | [one-liner] |
| ... | ... | ... |
**Overall Score: [average]/10**
## CRITICAL Issues ([count])
- **[Issue Title]** — `file:line` — flagged by: [critic1, critic2]
Why: [explanation]
Fix: [recommendation]
## HIGH Issues ([count])
- **[Issue Title]** — `file:line` — flagged by: [critic1]
Why: [explanation]
Fix: [recommendation]
## MEDIUM Issues ([count])
- **[Issue Title]** — `file:line`
Fix: [recommendation]
## LOW Issues ([count])
- **[Issue Title]** — `file:line`
Fix: [recommendation]
## Cross-Cutting Patterns
### [Pattern Name]
- Flagged by: [critic1, critic2, critic3]
- Root cause: [what's driving this]
- Impact: [what happens if not addressed]
- Recommendation: [actionable fix]
## Contradictions & Tensions
### [Tension Description]
- [Critic A] says: [recommendation]
- [Critic B] says: [recommendation]
- Reasoned take: [which to follow and why]
## Priority Action Items
1. [Most impactful fix — describe what to do and why it matters most]
2. [Second most impactful fix]
3. [Third most impactful fix]
Omit any section with zero items (e.g., if no contradictions, skip that section).
Apply severity filter if --severity flag was set.
Step 7: Optional File Output
If --output flag was set, write the consolidated report to the specified path using the Write tool.
If no --output flag, do NOT write any files.
