메뉴
Critique a written proposal or design artifact via 5 philosophical personas in parallel, with consensus synthesis.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent --skill multi-persona-critique명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
Run the full evidence-to-live implementation workflow for large, multi-system, multi-wave, or CPU-delegated 5 Star Booker GM programs.
Classify user requests and route to the correct agent + skill. Primary entry point for all delegated work.
Structured multi-phase workflows: review, debug, refactor (tidy, clean up, untangle messy code without behaviour change), deploy, create, research.
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | multi-persona-critique |
| description | Critique a written proposal or design artifact via 5 philosophical personas in parallel, with consensus synthesis. |
| user-invocable | true |
| argument-hint | <proposals to critique, or 'generate N ideas about X'> |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Bash","Glob","Grep","Agent"] |
| context | fork |
| routing | {"triggers":["critique these ideas","multi-persona review","philosophical critique","devil's advocate on ideas","stress test proposals","evaluate from multiple perspectives","get different viewpoints","critique proposals","roast code","devil's advocate","stress test idea","roast this","stress test this idea","poke holes in this"],"not_for":"speaking to a person, a meeting, or pushing back in a conversation — that is professional-communication. This critiques an artifact, not interpersonal messaging.","pairs_with":["decision-helper"],"complexity":"Complex","category":"analysis"} |
This skill takes a set of proposals — feature ideas, architectural decisions, design choices, strategy options — and sends ALL of them to 5 distinct intellectual personas for parallel, independent critique. Each persona brings a different philosophical lens. The skill then synthesizes all critiques into a consensus report showing where personas agree, where they disagree, and what the disagreements reveal.
This is NOT the roast skill. Key differences:
roast critiques CODE with HackerNews personas and validates file:line claimsroast is evidence-based (checking actual code); this is argument-based (evaluating reasoning)Key constraints baked into the workflow:
| Signal | Load These Files | Why |
|---|---|---|
| example-driven tasks, errors | examples-and-errors.md | Loads detailed guidance from examples-and-errors.md. |
| dispatching the five critique personas (Phase 2) | personas.md | Loads detailed guidance from personas.md. |
| writing the Phase 5 synthesis report | synthesis-template.md | Loads detailed guidance from synthesis-template.md. |
| roast-style code critique with HN personas | roast.md | Loads the roast workflow: evidence-based critique via 5 HN personas with claim validation. |
| HN persona specs, claim format, validation verdicts | hn-personas.md | Loads HN commenter persona specifications, prompt template, and claim format. |
Goal: Extract or generate clear, numbered proposals ready for critique.
Step 1: Determine input mode
| Input | Action |
|---|---|
| User provides proposals directly | Extract and number them |
| User says "generate N ideas about X" | Research the domain, read relevant code/docs, then generate proposals |
| Ambiguous input | Ask user to clarify before proceeding |
Step 2: Normalize proposals
Each proposal must be a clear, self-contained description (2-4 sentences) that any of the 5 personas can evaluate independently. If user-provided proposals are vague, expand them to include:
If generating proposals, research the domain first:
Step 3: Number and present
Present the numbered proposal list back to the user before proceeding. Format:
Proposals for critique:
1. [Title] — [2-4 sentence description]
2. [Title] — [2-4 sentence description]
...
Gate: Numbered list of proposals ready. Each proposal is self-contained with 2-4 sentences. Proceed only when gate passes.
Goal: Construct prompts for each of the 5 personas.
Load the full persona specifications from ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/personas.md. For each persona, construct a prompt containing an identity block, the numbered proposals, rating and ranking requirements, a fairness mandate, and the structured output format — see ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md (Phase 2: Persona Prompt Construction) for the complete construction recipe.
Gate: 5 persona prompts constructed, each containing all proposals and the full persona specification. Proceed only when gate passes.
Goal: Launch all 5 personas in parallel and collect independent critiques.
Launch 5 agents using the Agent tool, one per persona. Each agent runs independently with no awareness of other personas.
The 5 parallel agents:
The Logician (Bertrand Russell) Focus: Logical coherence, hidden assumptions, falsifiability, necessity vs novelty
The Pragmatic Builder (20-year staff engineer) Focus: Build cost vs value, maintenance burden, simpler alternatives, user need
The Systems Purist (Edsger Dijkstra) Focus: Accidental complexity, separation of concerns, elegance, failure modes
The End User Advocate (8-hours-a-day tool user) Focus: Daily impact, friction, delight, whether the problem is already solved
The Skeptical Philosopher (Illich/Postman/Franklin) Focus: Human agency, dependency risk, genuine vs manufactured problems, unintended consequences
Each agent must produce:
CRITICAL: Wait for ALL 5 agents to complete before proceeding to Phase 4. Do not begin synthesis on partial results. Every persona must contribute before consensus can be determined.
Gate: All 5 persona reports received. Each report contains ratings for all proposals and a ranked list. Proceed only when gate passes.
Goal: Build a consensus matrix and identify agreement, disagreement, and cross-cutting patterns.
Step 1: Build the consensus matrix
Create a matrix: proposals (rows) x personas (columns) x ratings. See the consensus matrix template in ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md.
Step 2: Classify consensus patterns
For each proposal, classify:
Step 3: Extract disagreement specifics
For CONTESTED and OUTLIER proposals, extract the specific disagreement:
Step 4: Calculate weighted consensus score
Assign numeric values: STRONG=3, PROMISING=2, WEAK=1, REJECT=0
For each proposal: sum all 5 ratings, giving a score from 0-15.
Step 5: Rank proposals by consensus score
Sort proposals from highest to lowest weighted score. Note ties and what distinguishes tied proposals.
Gate: Consensus matrix complete with classifications, disagreement analysis, and ranked scores. Proceed only when gate passes.
Goal: Deliver the synthesis report using the template from ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/synthesis-template.md.
Load the synthesis template and populate all 7 sections (Consensus Matrix; Features to Build; Worth Investigating; Interesting Disagreements; Shelve; Cross-Cutting Insights; Deepest Insight). See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md (Phase 5: Synthesis Report Sections) for each section's purpose and score-band criteria.
Gate: Report complete with all sections populated. Critique done.
See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md for:
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/personas.md: Full persona specifications, identity, evaluation criteria, prompt templates${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/synthesis-template.md: Consensus matrix format and synthesis report structure${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md: Worked examples, failure modes, error handlingroast: Code critique with evidence-based validation (complementary — roast critiques code, this critiques ideas)decision-helper: Weighted decision scoring for architectural choices (narrower — single-dimension scoring vs multi-persona critique)