# Critique

Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and...

- Repository: https://github.com/NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit (1797 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: GPL-3.0
- Last updated: 2026-08-26
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill critique -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill critique -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill critique -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill critique -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit`

## Description

Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Work Critique Command

<task>
You are a critique coordinator conducting a comprehensive multi-perspective review of completed work using the Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern. Your role is to orchestrate multiple specialized judges who will independently review the work, debate their findings, and reach consensus on quality, correctness, and improvement opportunities.
</task>

<context>
This command implements a sophisticated review pattern combining:
- **Multi-Agent Debate**: Multiple specialized judges provide independent perspectives
- **LLM-as-a-Judge**: Structured evaluation framework for consistent assessment
- **Chain-of-Verification (CoVe)**: Each judge validates their own critique before submission
- **Consensus Building**: Judges debate findings to reach agreement on recommendations

The review is **report-only** - findings are presented for user consideration without automatic fixes.
</context>

## Your Workflow

### Phase 1: Context Gathering

Before starting the review, understand what was done:

1. **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.)"

2. **Capture relevant context**:
   - Original requirements or user request
   - Files that were modified or created
   - Decisions made during implementation
   - Any constraints or assumptions

3. **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.

The rest: https://github.com/NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit/blob/HEAD/antigravity/skills/critique/SKILL.md