Document Critique

Parent: Writing and Documentation · researched 2026-05-25· 8 sources · 8 concepts · skill document-critique

This skill audits any document — proposal, playbook, RFC, spec, policy brief, marketing piece — against a named set of standards and returns a structured, evidence-based critique in a fixed four-secti

Document Critique

This skill audits any document - proposal, playbook, RFC, spec, policy brief, marketing piece - against a named set of standards and returns a structured, evidence-based critique in a fixed four-section shape. [source]
The output is built for downstream consumers (reviewers, exec sign-off, audit trails). Every finding cites the section, quote, or claim it applies to. Every assertion that a claim is false, an assumption is wrong, or a blind spot exists is backed by either a verifiable source or an explicit verify before use flag. [source]
The skill operates in two modes: [source]
If the caller does not specify a mode, default to critique. If two versions of the same document are supplied (two paths, two URLs, or --original + --final), ask once: "I see two versions - produce a diff guide?" If the caller does not answer within the same turn, default to critique against the second (assumed-newer) document and surface the assumption in the preamble. [source]

When not to use

Document is not provided or is unreadable - ask once for the document text, file path, or URL and stop if none is supplied. [source]
Caller asked for a rewrite, summary, or proofread - those are different tasks; route them to the right skill instead of producing a critique. [source]
The document is a one-paragraph note or unstructured chat snippet - the four-section output adds overhead with no benefit. [source]
The caller has not specified evaluation standards and no reasonable default exists - ask once: "Which standards should I evaluate this against?" Stop if none is supplied. [source]
(Diff mode) Only one version is supplied, or the two versions are identical - say so and stop. Do not synthesize a diff against a presumed older version. [source]
(Diff mode) The two versions are unrelated documents - diff mode assumes a shared lineage; if structure and headings diverge wildly, switch to running critique mode on the newer version instead. [source]
(Diff mode) The final version is effectively a rewrite - if more than ~60% of lines differ or more than ~50 substantive hunks would result, stop diff mode and tell the caller: "This is a rewrite, not a revision; a diff guide adds noise. Recommend /critique on the final version plus a short prose summary of intent." Proceed only if the caller insists. [source]

Invocation

Inline: paste the document text directly after /critique. [source]
File: /critique path/to/spec.md. [source]
URL: /critique https://example.com/doc - fetch via an available web tool. If no web tool is available, ask the caller to paste the text. [source]
Diff mode: pass two arguments in <original> <final> order, or use --original <X> --final <Y> for clarity. Order matters - the guide describes changes that move from original → final. [source]
If --standards is omitted, default to: technical accuracy, industry best practices, general logical rigor and clarity. [source]
If --doc-type is omitted, infer from the document and state the inference explicitly in the preamble. [source]
If --audience is omitted, infer from the document and state the inference explicitly in the preamble. [source]
In diff mode --standards is ignored - diff mode reports what changed, it does not evaluate against standards. If the caller wants both, run diff first, then critique on the final version. [source]

Step 1 — Ingest and frame

Read the entire document. If the document exceeds ~12,000 tokens (~48,000 characters), tell the caller and ask whether to (a) audit the full document in one pass at risk of context pressure, or (b) audit named sections only. [source]
Record three framing facts in working memory: documentType, evaluationStandards, targetAudience. If any were inferred rather than supplied, label them as inferred. [source]
Note any explicit hard requirements the document declares about itself (e.g., "must be IEEE 829 compliant", "must meet PCI-DSS"). These become mandatory standards in addition to the caller-supplied ones. [source]
Standards conflict tie-breaker: if two named standards give contradictory guidance for the same claim (e.g., IEEE Std 829-2008 strictness vs. a vendor playbook's brevity), evaluate against the more specific standard or, if specificity is equal, the more recently revised standard. Surface the conflict itself as a Pass A "Gaps" finding so the caller can see the trade-off, and audit the conflicting claim against both standards in that single finding. [source]

Step 2 — Run analytical passes

Passes A–G are independent of each other. Run them in parallel if the execution environment supports fan-out, or sequentially if not. Collect every finding before producing output. [source]
Every finding must include: pass letter, document location (section heading, page, paragraph, or quoted phrase), the issue, the standard it violates, the severity, and the evidence or source that supports the claim. [source]
#### Pass A - Strengths and Weaknesses (vs. named standards) [source]
For each standard in evaluationStandards, identify up to two of the strongest things the document does to satisfy it. If only one qualifies, list one; if none qualifies, write - None. for that standard. Do not invent strengths to reach a count. [source]
For each standard, identify the gaps: specific text that needs to be fixed, expanded, or removed to align with the standard. [source]
A gap is in scope only if it ties to a named standard or to a hard requirement the document declared about itself. [source]
#### Pass B - Factual rigor: verifiable falsehoods [source]
Flag any claim that is verifiably untrue. A finding qualifies as a falsehood only when: [source]
The claim is concrete enough to be checkable (specific number, version, mechanism, or date - not opinion or forecast), AND [source]
A cited source contradicts it, OR [source]
The claim contradicts another claim within the same document. [source]
If a claim looks suspicious but cannot be verified with available sources, classify it as a verify before use item in Pass C instead. Do not call it a falsehood without evidence. [source]
#### Pass C - Flawed assumptions [source]
List the assumptions the text makes - both stated and implicit. For each assumption, mark one of: [source]
safe - supported by the document or by stated context. (Internal classification only; do not surface in output.) [source]
risky - plausible but unproven; if it fails, the document's plan fails. [source]
wrong - contradicted by the document, by cited sources, or by widely accepted domain facts. [source]
Only risky and wrong assumptions become findings. wrong is severity High by default. risky is severity Medium unless the failure mode is irreversible or affects safety, security, or compliance, in which case promote to High. [source]
#### Pass D - Implicit blind spots [source]
Identify beliefs, scope choices, or systemic gaps the author has not surfaced but that compromise validity. Examples: [source]
An audience or stakeholder whose concerns are never addressed. [source]
A failure mode that would invalidate the plan but is never discussed. [source]
A regulatory, security, or compliance dimension that is unstated. [source]
An assumption about timing, capacity, or dependencies that is never named. [source]
A blind spot is in scope only if you can name (a) what is missing and (b) what would change in the document if it were addressed. [source]
#### Pass E - Anticipated objections and customer responses [source]
Predict pushback from the named targetAudience and any other stakeholders the document affects. For each predicted objection, record: [source]
Who raises it (role, not name). [source]
The specific claim or section that triggers the objection. [source]
Why this audience would push back - tie to their incentives, constraints, or prior commitments. [source]
Generic-objection filter: apply this test before listing an objection - "Would the same objection apply if the document's topic and claims were completely different (e.g., swap MongoDB for a tax filing system)?" If yes, the objection is generic; drop it. Only keep objections that depend on this document's specific claims, audience, or context. [source]
#### Pass F - Practical problems on implementation [source]
If the document's instructions or plan were executed as written, what would go wrong in the real world? For each problem, record: [source]
The step or instruction that produces the problem. [source]
The failure mode (what breaks, slows down, or becomes unsafe). [source]
The blast radius (who or what is affected, and how badly). [source]
Only include problems that follow from text actually in the document - do not invent generic operational risks. [source]
#### Pass G - Derived questions and resolutions [source]
List the crucial unanswered questions that arise naturally from reading the document. For each question: [source]
Phrase it so it has a checkable answer. [source]
Propose a concrete resolution path: which document section to expand, which person or team to ask, which test or experiment to run, which source to consult. [source]
Skip questions that the document already answers. Skip questions whose answers fall outside the document's stated goals. [source]

Step 3 — Triage findings

Score each finding by impact: [source]
Drop Low findings from the final output unless they are one-line, judgment-free fixes. [source]

Step 4 — Output the critique

Output length cap: within each subsection (Good, Gaps, Falsehoods, Flawed Assumptions, Blind Spots, Objections, Practical Problems, Derived Questions, Resolutions), surface up to 8 bullets. If more qualifying findings exist, keep the highest-severity 8 and append a single italic line under that subsection: _…and N more findings of equal or lower severity not shown._ [source]
Output exactly this skeleton - keep the headings verbatim because downstream consumers parse them. [source]
If a subsection has no findings, write - None. rather than omitting the subsection. [source]

Quality bar — critique mode

The critique passes quality bar when: [source]
The preamble line and all four sections are present, in order, with the exact headings shown in the Step 4 skeleton. [source]
Every Pass B and Pass C finding cites a source or carries the verify before use flag. [source]
Every Pass E and Pass F finding ties to text actually in the document. [source]
No subsection is silently omitted; empty subsections show - None.. [source]
The tally line matches the count of bullets surfaced (excluding truncation notices). [source]
No subsection exceeds 8 bullets without the _…and N more…_ truncation notice. [source]

Diff mode — version diff guide for reviewers

Diff mode is a separate process from the critique passes above. Use it when the caller supplies two versions of the same document and wants a markdown guide telling reviewers what changed between them. The output is descriptive, not evaluative - it surfaces changes, it does not judge them. [source]

Step D1 — Ingest both versions

Read both files in full. If only one is provided, ask once for the other and stop if none is supplied. [source]
Identify each version with a stable label: explicit --original / --final flags, the positional order, or filename hints (e.g., …V2.md → original, …V3.md → final). Surface the label assignment in the preamble so reviewers can confirm. [source]
If the two versions are byte-identical, stop and report: No changes detected between the two versions. [source]
Capture a baseline: line count of each version, size delta in lines, and whether either side declares an internal version stamp (Version: …, frontmatter version:, etc.). If the in-document version stamp did not change but the filename did, flag it in the Metadata caveats subsection so the reviewer is not surprised. [source]

Step D2 — Produce a structural diff

Prefer a real diff: run diff -u <original> <final> (or the language-appropriate equivalent) and use its hunks as evidence. If neither version is on disk, fall back to section-aligned comparison: split both texts on their heading hierarchy (or paragraph boundaries if no headings exist), pair sections by matching heading text or sequence, and compare paired sections paragraph-by-paragraph. Unmatched sections become Added/Removed; matched sections with text differences become Edited. Do not do raw line-by-line equality - it produces meaningless hunks on rewrapped paragraphs. [source]
Group hunks into change categories: [source]
Added - content that exists only in the final version. [source]
Removed - content that exists only in the original version. [source]
Edited - text present in both but materially changed (link target swap, wording change, threshold change, code-snippet change, table-row change). [source]
Moved - content that exists in both versions but at a different position. Only flag a move if the content is otherwise unchanged; if it was reworded while moving, classify as Edited and note the position change in the row. [source]
For each hunk, decide whether it is substantive (changes meaning, action, threshold, link target, code snippet, terminology, scope, structure) or cosmetic (whitespace, anchor regeneration, identical-link rewording, typo fix with no semantic shift). Cosmetic-only hunks are excluded from the per-change table and reported as a single aggregate row. [source]

Step D3 — Classify each substantive change

For every substantive hunk, record: [source]
Location - section heading and/or line number in the final version. [source]
Category - Added / Removed / Edited / Moved. [source]
What changed - one sentence in past tense describing the delta in concrete terms (name the threshold, link target, command, or term that moved). [source]
Why a reviewer should care - one sentence naming the externally visible effect (changes behavior, changes a citable number, changes a command an operator would run, adds a fallback path, etc.). If the change is purely editorial and has no downstream effect, write Editorial only - no behavior change. [source]
Risk flag - one of none, behavior, accuracy, link, scope, version. Use behavior for changes that alter an action or threshold, accuracy for changes that update a cited fact, link for URL or anchor changes, scope for added or removed sections, version for version-stamp or filename mismatches. [source]

Step D4 — Output the diff guide

Output a single markdown document with the exact section order below. Keep headings verbatim - downstream reviewers parse them. [source]

Diff-mode quality bar

The diff guide passes quality bar when: [source]
The preamble (Original, Final, Lines, In-document version stamp) is present and accurate. [source]
Every row in the What changed table cites a location in the final version that a reviewer can navigate to. [source]
Every row's Why reviewers should care column is either a concrete downstream effect or the literal string Editorial only - no behavior change. [source]
The What did not change section is populated (3–6 items) unless the documents are so structurally divergent that no stable anchors exist - in which case state that explicitly. [source]
The Suggested reviewer focus list is ranked, not alphabetical. [source]
No row exceeds one sentence in either of the two narrative columns. If a change needs more explanation, split it into multiple rows. [source]

Diff-mode constraints

Do not evaluate the changes against standards - that is critique mode's job. Diff mode is descriptive only. [source]
Do not include every cosmetic hunk in the table - aggregate them. Reviewer time is the bottleneck. [source]
Do not invent reasoning for a change. If the diff itself does not make the motivation visible, say so in the "Why reviewers should care" column with Motivation not visible in diff - confirm with author. [source]
Do not reorder the markdown sections. Downstream review tooling depends on the section order shown above. [source]
Preserve the language of the source documents; if the documents are non-English, write the diff guide in that language and keep section headings in English so the structure remains machine-parseable (mirrors critique mode). [source]

Constraints — critique mode

Do not change the four-section output shape - downstream consumers depend on it. [source]
Do not soften findings to be polite; do not sharpen them past what the evidence supports. [source]
Do not produce a rewrite, summary, or proofread - only structured findings. [source]
Never invent quotes, version numbers, or citations. If a source cannot be verified within the session, mark the claim verify before use. [source]
Never assert a falsehood without a contradicting source or an internal contradiction within the document. [source]
If the document is partially unreadable (truncated, garbled, image-only), call this out in the preamble and limit findings to readable sections. [source]
Preserve the language of the source document; if the document is non-English, write findings in that language and keep the section headings in English so the structure remains machine-parseable. [source]

Children

14-pass review methodology (frontier)
Severity scale (Blocking / Major / Medium / Minor / Nit) (frontier)
Convergence loop with 3-iteration cap (frontier)
Adversarial injection and hallucination guard (frontier)
Meta-artifact and versioning cleanup (frontier)
Human-voice rephrasing pass (frontier)
Authoritative verification and fact-checking (frontier)
Domain-aware skill activation (frontier)

Frontier under this node: 14-pass review methodology, Adversarial injection and hallucination guard, Authoritative verification and fact-checking, Convergence loop with 3-iteration cap, Domain-aware skill activation, Human-voice rephrasing pass, Meta-artifact and versioning cleanup, Severity scale (Blocking / Major / Medium / Minor / Nit)

← the whole tree · 3D view· how to read this page