メニュー
Provide critique on investigation results via human feedback, Codex consultation, or self-review. Can trigger additional investigation cycles for deepen/explore feedback. Use when iterating on research, requesting AI review, or providing human feedback.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Extract structured information from a research paper: system model, theorem statements, proof techniques, complexity claims, and red flags. Use when asked to analyze, summarize, or review an academic paper.
Generate, prioritize, and refine research ideas based on current investigation state. Use when the pipeline needs new or better hypotheses — after formalization, between investigation batches, or when all current ideas are resolved.
Ask the user targeted clarifying questions about their research goal before the pipeline runs. Use when the research goal is vague, ambiguous, or missing key context (e.g., which sections to focus on, threat model assumptions, what 'broken' means). Works with or without a paper.
Formalize a research question into precise, testable hypotheses with model assumptions, core properties, and explicit success/failure conditions. Use when asked to formalize, define, or scope a research problem after paper analysis.
Run investigation cycles that test hypotheses through proof verification, counterexample search, or security analysis, with keep-or-discard discipline. Use when asked to investigate, verify, prove, or disprove claims.
Run the full Reaper research pipeline: analyze a paper (optional), review literature, formalize the problem, investigate hypotheses with critique loops, and synthesize a report. Use when given a research goal, optionally with a paper.
| name | critique |
| description | Provide critique on investigation results via human feedback, Codex consultation, or self-review. Can trigger additional investigation cycles for deepen/explore feedback. Use when iterating on research, requesting AI review, or providing human feedback. |
| user-invocable | true |
| argument-hint | "<feedback>" | --codex | --self |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| compatibility | --codex mode requires an MCP-capable host with the codex-cli MCP server configured; --self and human-feedback modes have no extra requirements. |
Provide external perspective on investigation results. Three modes: human feedback, Codex consultation, and self-review. Can trigger additional investigation cycles when feedback requires deeper exploration.
Invoke this skill by name; pass either feedback as a quoted string, --codex, or --self. On slash-command hosts, prefix with / (e.g. /critique "<feedback>").
# Human feedback — iterate on existing results
critique "dig deeper into the liveness proof gap under partial synchrony"
# External-model consultation — get AI devil's advocate or inspiration (requires MCP host)
critique --codex
# Self-review — agent reviews its own findings for gaps
critique --self
Always read before starting:
reaper-workspace/notes/current-understanding.md — the "branch tip" of accumulated knowledgereaper-workspace/notes/results.md — what's been tried and what happenedreaper-workspace/notes/problem-statement.md — model assumptions and property definitionsreaper-workspace/notes/ideas.md — the ideas to investigatereaper-workspace/feedbacks/ — prior feedback roundsLazy-load only when needed:
reaper-workspace/notes/paper-summary.md — the source paper (if provided)reaper-workspace/notes/literature.md — known prior workreaper-workspace/papers/ — downloaded PDFs and per-paper notesWhen the argument is quoted text, the skill enters human feedback mode. This is used after investigation has produced results and the user wants to refine, deepen, or challenge specific findings.
Check reaper-workspace/feedbacks/ for existing round-*.md files. The new round number is one greater than the highest existing round, or 1 if none exist.
Classify the user's feedback and write reaper-workspace/feedbacks/round-N.md:
# Feedback Round N
**User request**: [the user's feedback, verbatim or lightly paraphrased]
**Category**: [scope | deepen | explore | rewrite]
**Action plan**: [what will be done]
Categories:
| Category | Signal | Example |
|---|---|---|
| scope | Change assumptions, threat model, or framing | "What if we assume a stronger adversary?" |
| deepen | Dig into a specific claim, finding, or proof step | "The proof gap in Theorem 3 — find a concrete counterexample" |
| explore | Investigate an area the report didn't cover | "What about liveness under partial synchrony?" |
| rewrite | Improve clarity, structure, or presentation only | "Make the contributions more concrete" |
scope: Return control to the orchestrator — this requires re-running /formalize-problem before investigation. Do not run cycles yourself; instead, write the feedback file and indicate that re-formalization is needed.
deepen: Invoke the /brainstorm skill with "context from the user's feedback" to generate targeted hypotheses based on the feedback, then invoke the /investigate skill with argument 5.
explore: If the area may need additional literature, use the search scripts first and update literature.md. Then invoke the /brainstorm skill with "context from the user's feedback" to generate hypotheses for the new area, followed by the /investigate skill with argument 5.
rewrite: No investigation cycles needed. Return control to the orchestrator to re-run /synthesize only.
For deepen and explore, after completing the cycles, the orchestrator should re-run /synthesize to produce an updated report.
--codex)Consult an external AI (OpenAI Codex via MCP) for an independent second opinion on the current investigation state. This establishes an automated feedback loop where Codex plays devil's advocate or provides alternative inspiration.
See ../reaper/references/codex-consultation.md for MCP setup, fallback behavior, session continuity, and context compression rules. The critique skill's Codex mode is the most thorough consultation — other skills have lighter-weight checkpoint consultations.
Check reaper-workspace/feedbacks/ for existing codex-consultation-*.md files. Count them to determine the consultation number N. Alternate roles:
Devil's Advocate (odd N: 1st, 3rd, 5th, ...): Ask Codex to challenge the current findings. Send it a compressed context (not full files):
current-understanding.md (extract the most recent insights, ~500 words — not the full file)notes/results.md (e.g., "Last 10 cycles: 6 keep, 4 discard; key patterns: [list]")Inspiration / Alternative Angles (even N: 2nd, 4th, 6th, ...): Ask Codex for fresh perspectives. Send it a compressed context:
current-understanding.md (~500 words)ideas.md (skip resolved ones)Context efficiency: Sending compressed context (~800 words) to Codex instead of full files (~5000 words) reduces latency and improves response quality by focusing Codex on what matters most.
reaper-workspace/feedbacks/codex-consultation-N.md.ideas.md with the next available H-number (continuing from the highest existing H# in ideas.md), tagged [Codex-N] in the Source field.[Codex-N].Use a single Codex session ID across all consultations within one investigation run. This allows Codex to build context across consultations. Pass the sessionId parameter to the codex tool, using a consistent ID like "reaper-critique-<timestamp>".
--self)The agent reviews its own investigation results for gaps, inconsistencies, or missed angles.
current-understanding.md, notes/results.md, and ideas.md.current-understanding.md that conflict with each other or with notes/results.md.ideas.md with the next available H-number, tagged [Self-N] in the Source field (where N is one more than the count of existing self-review rounds)./investigate skill with argument 3 to address them. The self-review findings are recorded as part of the cycle logs in reaper-workspace/logs/ — no separate self-review file is needed.reaper-workspace/logs/ (append-only)[Round N], [Codex-N], [Self-N])