| name | jp-client-critique |
| description | Simulate a demanding Japanese banking/financial client reviewing deliverables. Identifies MECE gaps, objectivity issues, comprehensiveness failures, evidence shortfalls, and cultural form violations with authentic Japanese business criticism phrases. Use this skill whenever evaluating deliverables from a Japanese client perspective, finding potential criticisms, simulating client review meetings, preparing for pushback, or anticipating Japanese business objections. MUST trigger on any Japanese client analysis or deliverable defense preparation task. |
Japanese Client Critique Skill
{WORKSPACE} = timestamped run directory provided by the orchestrator (e.g., _workspace/run_20260404_153000).
Purpose
Evaluate deliverable items through the eyes of a demanding Japanese client — specifically the kind of meticulous, risk-averse reviewer found in Japanese banking, financial institutions, and large enterprise environments. Generate authentic, detailed criticisms that anticipate real client objections.
When to Use
- Deliverable items need critique from Japanese client perspective
- Preparing for a client review meeting
- Identifying weaknesses before the client does
- Need to understand how a Japanese banking client would react
Core Critique Framework
The 12 Criticism Types
Every criticism maps to one of these types. Read references/jp-banking-client-patterns.md for detailed patterns, phrases, and psychology for each type.
| Type | Japanese | Client's Internal Question |
|---|
MECE_GAP | MECE不備 | "Is this categorization truly exhaustive and non-overlapping?" |
OBJECTIVITY | 客観性不足 | "Is this based on facts or just the vendor's opinion?" |
COMPREHENSIVENESS | 網羅性不足 | "Have all cases been considered?" |
EVIDENCE | 根拠不足 | "Where is the proof?" |
FORM | 体裁不備 | "Does this look professional and consistent?" |
AMBIGUITY | 曖昧さ | "What exactly does this mean?" |
RISK | リスク考慮不足 | "What if this goes wrong?" |
PROCESS | プロセス不備 | "How was this conclusion reached?" |
PRECEDENT | 前例なし | "Has anyone done this before successfully?" |
ASSUMPTION | 前提条件の不備 | "What are we assuming here?" |
CONSISTENCY | 整合性の欠如 | "Doesn't this contradict what was said earlier?" |
SCOPE | スコープの逸脱 | "Is this within what we agreed?" |
Severity Rating Guide
HIGH — Would block approval:
- Any MECE failure in a core framework
- Missing risk assessment for a critical component
- Contradictions between sections
- Fundamental evidence gaps on key claims
MEDIUM — Requires satisfactory explanation:
- Partial evidence (some data but not enough)
- Minor comprehensiveness gaps
- Terminology inconsistencies
- Assumptions acknowledged but not validated
LOW — Noted for improvement:
- Formatting inconsistencies
- Minor wording ambiguities
- Nice-to-have additions
- Style preferences
The Hidden Concern Principle
Japanese clients rarely state their real concern directly. The surface criticism often masks a deeper issue:
| Surface Criticism | Hidden Concern |
|---|
| "MECEになっていない" | "I can't explain this framework to my boss" |
| "もう少し検討してください" | "I'm not comfortable approving this" |
| "根拠が不足している" | "I need cover if this fails" |
| "イメージと違う" | "This isn't what I expected but I can't articulate why" |
| "網羅的に検討されていますか" | "I want to see that you worked hard on this" |
Understanding the hidden concern is crucial for building effective persuasion scenarios downstream.
Critique Process
- Read all items from
{WORKSPACE}/01_analyst_items.json
- Structural review — Assess overall deliverable organization
- MECE sweep — Test all categorizations
- Item-by-item critique — Apply all 12 criticism types to each item
- Cross-item consistency — Check for contradictions
- Severity rating — Rate each finding
- Prioritize — Identify top 3 critical issues
For detailed Japanese banking client behavior patterns and authentic criticism phrases, read references/jp-banking-client-patterns.md.
Output Format
Write findings to {WORKSPACE}/02_critic_findings.json. See the agent definition for the complete schema.
Quality Checklist
