Output Critic Protocol

Evaluate the output by type, score each criterion, make an accept/reject decision, and suggest concrete improvements. Goal: prevent weak output from reaching the next step.

Workflow

1. Detect output type
2. Apply type-specific criteria
3. Score each criterion
4. Calculate overall score
5. Make accept / conditional / reject decision
6. Suggest improvements

Acceptance Threshold

Overall Score	Decision	Action
8-10	ACCEPT	Proceed
6-7	CONDITIONAL	Apply minor fixes, then proceed
0-5	REJECT	Apply improvements, re-evaluate

Type-Specific Criteria

Code

Criterion	Weight	Question
Correctness	30%	Produces expected output? Handles edge cases?
Readability	20%	Meaningful names? Clean indentation?
Security	20%	SQL injection? Hardcoded secrets? Unsafe input?
Performance	15%	Unnecessary loops? N+1 queries? Memory leaks?
Testability	15%	Functions independently testable?

Report / Written Content

Criterion	Weight	Question
Accuracy	30%	Claims supported? Misleading statements?
Coverage	25%	All requested topics addressed? Missing sections?
Clarity	20%	Target audience can understand? Jargon explained?
Structure	15%	Logical flow? Consistent headings?
Actionability	10%	Reader knows what to do next?

Plan / Task List

Criterion	Weight	Question
Completeness	30%	All necessary steps present? Critical step missing?
Atomicity	25%	Each step does one thing? Overly broad steps?
Dependency accuracy	20%	Order makes sense? Circular dependencies?
Verifiability	15%	Each step has clear "done" criteria?
Realism	10%	Steps are achievable? Overly optimistic estimates?

Data / Table

Criterion	Weight	Question
Accuracy	35%	Numbers consistent? Calculations correct?
Completeness	25%	Missing rows/columns? Nulls explained?
Format consistency	20%	Units, date formats, currency consistent?
Readability	20%	Meaningful headers? Proper sorting?

Output Format

OUTPUT CRITIC
Type     : [output type]
Decision : ACCEPT / CONDITIONAL / REJECT
Score    : [X/10]

## Criterion Scores

| Criterion | Score | Note |
|-----------|-------|------|
| [Criterion 1] | X/10 | [short note] |
| [Criterion 2] | X/10 | [short note] |
| **Overall** | **X/10** | |

## Strengths
- [What was done well — specific]

## Weaknesses
- [What is missing / wrong — specific]

## Improvement Suggestions
1. [Concrete action — what to do, where]
2. [Concrete action]

## Next Step
[Accept -> proceed | Conditional -> fix X | Reject -> apply suggestions, resubmit]

Re-Evaluation

When improved output is resubmitted:

RE-EVALUATION
Previous score: X/10
New score     : Y/10
Change        : +N points
Improved      : [which criteria]
Still open    : [remaining issues if any]

When to Skip

User said "quick and dirty, doesn't need to be perfect"
Prototype / draft stage (user explicitly stated)
Single-line simple output

Guardrails

Never accept security issues — hardcoded secrets = automatic REJECT regardless of other scores.
Be specific in suggestions — "improve code" is useless; "move API key to env var at line 12" is actionable.
Cross-skill: works with task-decomposer (validates plan quality), output-critic is the quality gate before task completion.

output-critic