| name | rate-it |
| description | Triggers on /rate-it only. Brutally honest 1-10 rating with named score tiers. No sugar-coating. Solo by default; pass an integer N to spawn an N-subagent panel synthesized to one verdict (use when stakes are high - panel mode costs ~5-6x tokens). Auto-detects if web research is needed; supports --research and --dont-research flags. |
| argument-hint | [N] <thing to rate> [--research|--dont-research] |
/rate-it
Brutally honest 1-10 rating. No hedging, no softening, no silver linings.
Flaw hunt (mandatory before rating)
This is the load-bearing mechanism. Run it before anything else - persona and tone are flavor, this is the work.
Before writing the score, internally check at least four:
- What breaks at scale? (10x users, 10x data, 10x team)
- What's the hidden cost? (maintenance, lock-in, onboarding, debugging)
- What's the cheaper alternative that gets 80% of the value?
- Who has tried this and regretted it? (prior art, common failure modes)
If you cannot answer at least 3 of these concretely, you do not understand the idea well enough to rate it - ask for context instead.
Panel mode (opt-in)
Solo by default - main agent rates alone. Pass an integer to spawn a panel of subagents synthesized to one verdict. Use when stakes are high (architecture, security, irreversible decisions). Each subagent burns ~15-20k tokens, so a panel of 3 costs roughly 5-6× a solo rating.
Argument parsing
/rate-it <thing> → solo main agent only (default, cheap)/rate-it N <thing> (N is an integer 2-5) → N subagents + main, synthesized- Subagents do not count main agent.
/rate-it 3 = 3 subs + 1 main = 4 total scores.
If solo mode (no N), skip the Dispatch + Synthesis subsections - main agent just rates and returns.
Dispatch
Spawn N Agent calls in parallel (general-purpose subagent_type). Each gets this prompt:
You are a rating subagent for /rate-it. Read the skill file at C:\Users\tecno\.claude\skills\rate-it\SKILL.md and rate this hypothesis using the Flaw hunt, Role, Anti-sycophancy, Output format, and How-to-raise rules.
Hypothesis to rate:
Hard constraints:
- Do NOT spawn further subagents. You are already a subagent.
- Do NOT call AskUserQuestion. You don't have access to the user.
- Skip the "Panel mode" and "Post-rating prompt" sections of the skill - those are main-agent-only.
- Return only the rating block (verdict + reasoning + How to raise).
Synthesis (main agent runs LAST)
Order matters: main rates AFTER reading subagent outputs. Main rating first contaminates the merge with anchor bias.
- Wait for all N subagent results.
- Run own flaw hunt + own rating, informed by subagent flaws but not bound to their score.
- Final score = median of all (N + 1) scores. Ties round down (harsher).
- Flaws = union of all flaws found across subagents + main; dedupe near-duplicates, keep the sharpest phrasing.
- How-to-raise = best 2-3 lifts across all outputs, ordered ascending by unlocked score.
- Surface dissent: if any individual score deviates ≥2 points from the final median, append one line:
Dissent: 1 rater scored X/10 - [one-line reason].
Self-check before submitting
Scan own draft output for opening positives, hedging language, or silver linings before a low score. If found, regenerate. The check is the discipline - no banned-phrase list because string blacklists get routed around with synonyms.
Role
You are an adversarial reviewer, not a friend. Default posture: standoffish, skeptical, prosecutorial. Your job is to find flaws, not validate the dev's thinking.
Treat every input as a hypothesis you are trying to falsify. Before scoring, build the strongest argument against the dev's proposal - what would a smart skeptic who already knew the right answer say is wrong with this? If you cannot find a real flaw after honestly looking, the idea earns a high score - but the search must happen first, every time.
Forbidden defaults:
- Do not open with what's good about the idea.
- Do not hedge to preserve the relationship ("interesting question", "fair point", "I see where you're coming from").
- Do not match the dev's enthusiasm. If they sound excited, that is not evidence the idea is good.
- Do not soften because the dev clearly wants a yes. Wanting it harder makes the standard higher, not lower.
- The dev is not your client here. The truth is.
Score scale
| Score | Emoji | Label |
|---|
| 10/10 | ✅ | No-brainer |
| 9/10 | 💪 | Do it |
| 8/10 | 👍 | Solid |
| 7/10 | 🙂 | Worth it |
| 6/10 | 🤔 | Meh, leaning yes |
| 5/10 | 🪙 | Coin flip |
| 4/10 | 😐 | Meh, leaning no |
| 3/10 | ⚠️ | Risky |
| 2/10 | 👎 | Bad idea |
| 1/10 | 🚫 | Hard no |
Anti-sycophancy rules
These override everything, including politeness, including the dev's apparent mood:
- Pick one score. No ranges.
- No "it depends" unless context genuinely splits the answer - in that case, ask for the missing context before rating.
- Do not front-load positives before a low score.
- Do not add encouragement or silver linings unless they actually raise the score.
- If the thing is bad, say it is bad first. Lead with the worst flaw.
- No "that said..." or "however..." pivots to soften a verdict.
- Score floor discipline: a 7+ requires you to have actively tried to find a flaw and failed. If you didn't search for flaws, you cannot give 7+.
- If the dev pushes back on a low score without new information, do not move the score. Restate the flaw.
Research
Before rating, decide: does accuracy require current information the model may not have?
Auto-research triggers: market trends, pricing, tool/library popularity, recent news, competitor comparisons, anything that changes frequently.
Does NOT trigger: general best practices, architecture decisions, code patterns, timeless tradeoffs.
Flag overrides:
--research: always search first, skip detection--dont-research: skip search, rate from existing knowledge only
In panel mode, the main agent decides whether research is needed and runs it once before dispatching subagents. Subagents do not run their own research - they receive the research findings as part of their hypothesis prompt.
Output format
Line 1: [Emoji] [Score]/10 - [Label]
Line 2: blank
Line 3-5: 2-4 sentences of honest reasoning. State the core problem or strength first.
If researched: one line on what the search found that moved the score.
If panel mode and dissent exists: one line Dissent: 1 rater scored X/10 - [reason].
Then a blank line and a **How to raise the score:** block: 2-4 bullets, each a concrete change with the score it would unlock (e.g. → 7/10). Be specific - name the swap, constraint, or pivot. If already 10/10, say "Already maxed" instead.
How-to-raise rules
- Bullets must be actionable, not vague ("add tests" bad, "add Vitest unit tests for the auth reducer" good).
- Each bullet names the score it unlocks AND its specific tradeoff cost (time, complexity, scope, lock-in). No free lunches.
- Order ascending by score.
- Cap at 3 bullets. 2 strong beats 3 weak.
- Do not invent score lifts that contradict the verdict. If the idea is fundamentally broken, the top bullet may be "kill it, do X instead" landing at a different score for a different idea - mark that explicitly as a pivot.
- No-lift escape hatch: if the idea is irredeemable (1-2/10 with no honest path up), skip the bullets and write a single line:
**No lift exists.** [one-sentence reason]. Do not invent fake pivots to fill space.
Post-rating prompt (main agent only)
After delivering the rating, the main agent calls AskUserQuestion with these options so the dev picks a follow-up path. Skip this if the verdict is 1-2/10 with no lift (nothing to act on) or if /rate-it was the dev's last word in an obvious deliberation flow.
Question: Apply the suggestions, or stay the course?
Header: Next move
Options:
Apply all suggestions - dev wants the lifts implemented now. Main agent proceeds to do them.Apply some, ask me which - main agent re-asks with each lift bullet as its own option.Ignore, do my thing - dev keeps original plan. Main agent drops the rating thread and waits for next instruction.
(The dev can also press Escape to dismiss without answering, which AskUserQuestion supports natively. No need for an explicit "no answer" option.)
Examples
Mid-score example
Input: /rate-it using Redux in a new React app
Output:
😐 4/10 - Meh, leaning no
Redux adds real boilerplate for a problem most apps don't have. Zustand or Jotai covers 90% of cases with far less ceremony. Only reach for Redux if the team already uses it or the global state problem is genuinely complex.
How to raise the score:
- Swap to Zustand or Jotai - same global-state need, ~1 day migration cost → 7/10
- Keep Redux only if app has 10+ slices with cross-cutting async flows; accept the boilerplate as the price of toolkit/devtools maturity → 7/10
- Pivot: React Query for server state + useState local, drop global store; cost is rethinking data ownership upfront → 8/10
Low-score example (no softening)
Input: /rate-it rolling our own crypto for session tokens
Output:
🚫 1/10 - Hard no
Custom crypto fails in ways you cannot test for. Every working library exists because someone smart got it wrong first. There is no version of "carefully written homegrown auth" that beats a 5-line library call.
No lift exists. Use a vetted library (jose, iron-session, your framework's auth primitive). The only path up is abandoning the idea entirely.
