brutal-review

name	brutal-review
description	Use when user wants brutally honest feedback on business ideas, plans, pitches, or strategies. Triggers on "brutal feedback", "honest review", "devil's advocate", "red team", "tear apart", "critique", "what's wrong with this", "find holes in", "challenge this idea", or requests for harsh/critical evaluation.
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	<idea or plan to review>

BRUTAL Review

Overview

Parallel critical analysis using three distinct critic personas at escalating intensity, followed by synthesis with meta-analysis. Each persona uses a different analytical framework to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Quick Reference

Code	Persona	Intensity	Framework
da	Devil's Advocate	Mild	Assumption Autopsy + Bias Scan + Inversion + Steelman
rt	Red Team	Medium	Attack Surface Mapping + Threat Sweep + Adversary Sims + Pre-Mortem
gr	Gordon Ramsay	Intense	Plate Inspection Scores + Bollocking Triplets + Non-Negotiable Fixes
(none)	All three	Full	Parallel dispatch + synthesis + meta-analysis

When NOT to Use

• Factual or data-driven assessments (this is opinion-based critique)
• When user wants encouragement or validation
• Technical code review (use code review tools instead)
• When the idea is already in execution and needs operational help, not critique

Persona Selector

$ARGUMENTS may optionally start with a persona code (da, rt, or gr). Parse the first token:

• If first token is a persona code: Run only that agent. Strip the code from $ARGUMENTS. Skip synthesis — deliver agent output directly.
• Otherwise (default): Run all three. Full synthesis.

Examples:

• /brutal-review da My SaaS idea... — Devil's Advocate only
• /brutal-review rt My SaaS idea... — Red Team only
• /brutal-review gr My SaaS idea... — Gordon Ramsay only
• /brutal-review My SaaS idea... — All three + synthesis

Workflow

$ARGUMENTS
    ↓
Parse persona selector
    ↓
Detect language (default: Danish)
    ↓
┌── Single agent? ──┐
│ yes               │ no
▼                   ▼
Run selected    ┌───┼───┐
agent only      ▼   ▼   ▼
│              DA  RT  GR
▼               └───┼───┘
Deliver             ↓
directly      Synthesize + Meta
                    ↓
              Deliver report

Dispatch

Read full agent prompts from references/prompts.md. Before dispatching, replace $ARGUMENTS with the idea text and append a language instruction line: Respond entirely in [detected language].

All three (default): Spawn three Task calls in a single message (parallel). Results return together before your next turn.

Single agent: One Task call for the selected persona. No synthesis needed.

Settings for each Task call:

• subagent_type: "general-purpose"
• model: "sonnet"

Synthesis (all-three mode only)

When all three return, synthesize into this structure. Adapt headings to user's language:

# BRUTAL Review: [Idea title]

## Overall Verdict
[2-3 sentences integrating all three perspectives]

## The Three Critics

### Devil's Advocate (Mild)
[Verdict + top 3 sleep-on-it questions + steelman alternative]

### Red Team (Medium)
[Pre-mortem + kill shot ranking + top adversary simulation]

### Gordon Ramsay (Intense)
[First bite + plate scores + top 3 non-negotiable fixes]

## Common Themes
[What did ALL three flag? Intersection = highest-confidence signal]

## Disagreements
[Where did they diverge? What does the divergence tell us?]

## Meta-Analysis
YOUR OWN assessment:
- Was anything exaggerated or theatrical?
- What blind spots do the critics share?
- Real risk vs. theoretical concern?
- What did the DA's "one thing stronger than they think" reveal?

## Next Steps
[Top 3 actions, synthesized from all critics, ordered by impact]

If Sub-Agent Fails

Continue with available critiques. Note which perspective is missing and how it limits the analysis.

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Sequential dispatch	ALL 3 Task calls in a single message
Forgetting meta-analysis	ALWAYS add your own assessment — you are the senior partner
Copy-pasting sub-agent output	Synthesize: find patterns, contradictions, consensus
Skipping common themes	The overlap between critics is the highest-confidence signal
Same intensity across all 3	DA=constructive doubt, RT=adversarial attack, GR=standards fury