Work Critique Command

The review is report-only - findings are presented for user consideration without automatic fixes.

Your Workflow

Phase 1: Context Gathering

Before starting the review, understand what was done:

Identify the scope of work to review:

• If arguments provided: Use them to identify specific files, commits, or conversation context

• If no arguments: Review the recent conversation history and file changes

• Ask user if scope is unclear: "What work should I review? (recent changes, specific feature, entire conversation, etc.)"

Capture relevant context:

• Original requirements or user request

• Files that were modified or created

• Decisions made during implementation

• Any constraints or assumptions

Summarize scope for confirmation:

📋 Review Scope:

• Original request: [summary]
• Files changed: [list]
• Approach taken: [brief description]

Proceeding with multi-agent review...

Phase 2: Independent Judge Reviews (Parallel)

Use the Task tool to spawn three specialized judge agents in parallel. Each judge operates independently without seeing others' reviews.

Judge 1: Requirements Validator

Prompt for Agent:

You are a Requirements Validator conducting a thorough review of completed work.

Your Task

Review the following work and assess alignment with original requirements:

[CONTEXT] Original Requirements: {requirements} Work Completed: {summary of changes} Files Modified: {file list} [/CONTEXT]

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

1. Initial Analysis:

   • List all requirements from the original request
   • Check each requirement against the implementation
   • Identify gaps, over-delivery, or misalignments

2. Self-Verification:

   • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your analysis
   • Example: "Did I check for edge cases mentioned in requirements?"
   • Answer each question honestly
   • Refine your analysis based on answers

3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

   Requirements Alignment Score: X/10

   Requirements Coverage:

   ✅ [Met requirement 1] ✅ [Met requirement 2] ⚠️ [Partially met requirement 3] - [explanation] ❌ [Missed requirement 4] - [explanation]

   Gaps Identified:

   • [gap 1 with severity: Critical/High/Medium/Low]
   • [gap 2 with severity]

   Over-Delivery/Scope Creep:

   • [item 1] - [is this good or problematic?]

   Verification Questions & Answers:

   Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...

Be specific, objective, and cite examples from the code.

Judge 2: Solution Architect

Prompt for Agent:

You are a Solution Architect evaluating the technical approach and design decisions.

Your Task

Review the implementation approach and assess if it's optimal:

[CONTEXT] Problem to Solve: {problem description} Solution Implemented: {summary of approach} Files Modified: {file list with brief description of changes} [/CONTEXT]

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

1. Initial Evaluation:

   • Analyze the chosen approach
   • Consider alternative approaches
   • Evaluate trade-offs and design decisions
   • Check for architectural patterns and best practices

2. Self-Verification:

   • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your evaluation
   • Example: "Am I being biased toward a particular pattern?"
   • Example: "Did I consider the project's existing architecture?"
   • Answer each question honestly
   • Adjust your evaluation based on answers

3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

   Solution Optimality Score: X/10

   Approach Assessment:

   Chosen Approach: [brief description] Strengths:

   • [strength 1 with explanation]
   • [strength 2]

   Weaknesses:

   • [weakness 1 with explanation]
   • [weakness 2]

   Alternative Approaches Considered:

   1. [Alternative 1]

      • Pros: [list]
      • Cons: [list]
      • Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent to current approach]

   2. [Alternative 2]

      • Pros: [list]
      • Cons: [list]
      • Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent]

   Design Pattern Assessment:

   • Patterns used correctly: [list]
   • Patterns missing: [list with explanation why they'd help]
   • Anti-patterns detected: [list with severity]

   Scalability & Maintainability:

   • [assessment of how solution scales]
   • [assessment of maintainability]

   Verification Questions & Answers:

   Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...

Be objective and consider the context of the project (size, team, constraints).

Judge 3: Code Quality Reviewer

Prompt for Agent:

You are a Code Quality Reviewer assessing implementation quality and suggesting refactorings.

Your Task

Review the code quality and identify refactoring opportunities:

[CONTEXT] Files Changed: {file list} Implementation Details: {code snippets or file contents as needed} Project Conventions: {any known conventions from codebase} [/CONTEXT]

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

1. Initial Review:

   • Assess code readability and clarity
   • Check for code smells and complexity
   • Evaluate naming, structure, and organization
   • Look for duplication and coupling issues
   • Verify error handling and edge cases

2. Self-Verification:

   • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your review
   • Example: "Am I applying personal preferences vs. objective quality criteria?"
   • Example: "Did I consider the existing codebase style?"
   • Answer each question honestly
   • Refine your review based on answers

3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

   Code Quality Score: X/10

   Quality Assessment:

   Strengths:

   • [strength 1 with specific example]
   • [strength 2]

   Issues Found:

   • [issue 1] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
     • Location: [file:line]
     • Example: [code snippet]

   Refactoring Opportunities:

   1. [Refactoring 1 Name] - Priority: [High/Medium/Low]

      • Current code:

        [code snippet]
        

      • Suggested refactoring:

        [improved code]
        

      • Benefits: [explanation]
      • Effort: [Small/Medium/Large]

   2. [Refactoring 2]

      • [same structure]

   Code Smells Detected:

   • [smell 1] at [location] - [explanation and impact]
   • [smell 2]

   Complexity Analysis:

   • High complexity areas: [list with locations]
   • Suggested simplifications: [list]

   Verification Questions & Answers:

   Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...

Provide specific, actionable feedback with code examples.

Implementation Note: Use the Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose" to spawn these three agents in parallel, each with their respective prompt and context.

Phase 3: Cross-Review & Debate

After receiving all three judge reports:

Synthesize the findings:

• Identify areas of agreement

• Identify contradictions or disagreements

• Note gaps in any review

Conduct debate session (if significant disagreements exist):

• Present conflicting viewpoints to judges

• Ask each judge to review the other judges' findings

• Example: "Requirements Validator says approach is overengineered, but Solution Architect says it's appropriate for scale. Please both review this disagreement and provide reasoning."

• Use Task tool to spawn follow-up agents that have context of previous reviews

Reach consensus:

• Synthesize the debate outcomes

• Identify which viewpoints are better supported

• Document any unresolved disagreements with "reasonable people may disagree" notation

Phase 4: Generate Consensus Report

Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:

🔍 Work Critique Report

Executive Summary

[2-3 sentences summarizing overall assessment]

Overall Quality Score: X/10 (average of three judge scores)

📊 Judge Scores

✅ Strengths

[Synthesized list of what was done well, with specific examples]

1. [Strength 1]
   • Source: [which judge(s) noted this]
   • Evidence: [specific example]

⚠️ Issues & Gaps

Critical Issues

[Issues that need immediate attention]

• [Issue 1]
  • Identified by: [judge name]
  • Location: [file:line if applicable]
  • Impact: [explanation]
  • Recommendation: [what to do]

High Priority

[Important but not blocking]

Medium Priority

[Nice to have improvements]

Low Priority

[Minor polish items]

🎯 Requirements Alignment

[Detailed breakdown from Requirements Validator]

Requirements Met: X/Y Coverage: Z%

[Specific requirements table with status]

🏗️ Solution Architecture

[Key insights from Solution Architect]

Chosen Approach: [brief description]

Alternative Approaches Considered:

1. [Alternative 1] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
2. [Alternative 2] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]

Recommendation: [Stick with current / Consider alternative X because...]

🔨 Refactoring Recommendations

[Prioritized list from Code Quality Reviewer]

High Priority Refactorings

1. [Refactoring Name]
   • Benefit: [explanation]
   • Effort: [estimate]
   • Before/After: [code examples]

Medium Priority Refactorings

[similar structure]

🤝 Areas of Consensus

[List where all judges agreed]

• [Agreement 1]
• [Agreement 2]

💬 Areas of Debate

[If applicable - where judges disagreed]

Debate 1: [Topic]

• Requirements Validator position: [summary]
• Solution Architect position: [summary]
• Resolution: [consensus reached or "reasonable disagreement"]

📋 Action Items (Prioritized)

Based on the critique, here are recommended next steps:

Must Do:

• [Critical action 1]
• [Critical action 2]

Should Do:

• [High priority action 1]
• [High priority action 2]

Could Do:

• [Medium priority action 1]
• [Nice to have action 2]

🎓 Learning Opportunities

[Lessons that could improve future work]

• [Learning 1]
• [Learning 2]

📝 Conclusion

[Final assessment paragraph summarizing whether the work meets quality standards and key takeaways]

Verdict: ✅ Ready to ship | ⚠️ Needs improvements before shipping | ❌ Requires significant rework

Generated using Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern Review Date: [timestamp]

Important Guidelines

• Be Objective: Base assessments on evidence, not preferences

• Be Specific: Always cite file locations, line numbers, and code examples

• Be Constructive: Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement

• Be Balanced: Acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses

• Be Actionable: Provide concrete recommendations with examples

• Consider Context: Account for project constraints, team size, timelines

• Avoid Bias: Don't favor certain patterns/styles without justification

Usage Examples

Review recent work from conversation

/critique

Review specific files

/critique src/feature.ts src/feature.test.ts

Review with specific focus

/critique --focus=security

Review a git commit

/critique HEAD~1..HEAD

Notes

• This is a report-only command - it does not make changes

• The review may take 2-5 minutes due to multi-agent coordination

• Scores are relative to professional development standards

• Disagreements between judges are valuable insights, not failures

• Use findings to inform future development decisions