Critique Command

Use this command to get a Distinguished Engineer level technical critique of the current approach and implementation.

Step 0: Prior-art check (MANDATORY)

Before critiquing, recall prior learnings from the global knowledge base so we don't re-learn or re-decide something already captured:

uv run "{{HOME_TOOL_DIR}}/skills/recall/scripts/recall.py" \
  "<QUERY>" \
  --limit 5 --format markdown

Query construction for /critique: a short summary of the approach/code being critiqued + relevant domain keywords (e.g. "event-sourced migration rollback strategy").

What to do with results:

• If a returned learning names a constraint, anti-pattern, or prior decision directly relevant to the task — surface it to the user BEFORE proceeding with this skill's main flow.
• If nothing relevant returns — proceed silently, no need to mention the check.
• Never block on recall failure. Empty output / non-zero exit is expected when the KB is absent or the subprocess errors — treat it as "no prior art found", not as an error.

Usage

/critique [type] "context"

Types

• general - Overall technical review (default)
• architecture - System design and patterns review
• performance - Performance and scalability analysis
• security - Security implications assessment
• cost - Total cost of ownership analysis
• complexity - Overengineering assessment
• all - Comprehensive review covering all aspects

Description

This command provides brutally honest, constructive critique with 25+ years of Distinguished Engineer experience perspective. The review prevents costly mistakes while not crushing innovation. The critique will be displayed in a clear block for review and response.

Examples

/critique architecture "Using microservices for a 3-user internal tool"
/critique cost "Kubernetes for a static website"
/critique all "Redux for state management in a todo app"
/critique "Using 5 different databases in a startup MVP"

Output Format

The critique provides a structured JSON report containing:

• Summary: Verdict (APPROVE/CAUTION/RECONSIDER/REJECT), one-liner, confidence score
• Strengths: 2-3 genuine strengths of the approach
• Concerns: Critical, major, and minor issues with impact analysis
• Alternatives: Better approaches with pros/cons
• Cost Analysis: Initial, operational, hidden costs, and 3-year TCO
• Complexity Assessment: Overengineering score and simplification suggestions
• Team Impact: Learning curve, hiring difficulty, maintenance burden
• Future Proofing: Scalability limits, migration difficulty, tech debt
• Recommendation: Should proceed or not with conditions
• Wisdom: Pattern recognition, war stories, and principles

Implementation

When this command is invoked:

1. Context Extraction:

   • Identify what needs critique from the current conversation
   • Gather recent technical decisions and implementation details
   • List files created or modified in this session
   • Extract relevant code snippets
   • Note any trade-offs or constraints mentioned

2. Analysis Phase:

   • Apply Distinguished Engineer perspective (25+ years experience)
   • Identify anti-patterns and overengineering
   • Assess complexity vs problem size
   • Consider simpler alternatives
   • Evaluate long-term implications

3. Generate Critique with structured output:

   • Verdict (APPROVE/CAUTION/RECONSIDER/REJECT)
   • Critical concerns with evidence
   • Alternative approaches with trade-offs
   • Overengineering score
   • Clear recommendations

4. Display Output in formatted block:

   • Color-coded verdict
   • Highlighted critical concerns
   • Alternative recommendations table
   • Action items

5. Save the critique to {{HOME_TOOL_DIR}}/critiques/critique_[TIMESTAMP]_[TYPE].json

Critique Perspective

The Distinguished Engineer perspective includes:

• 25+ years seeing technologies rise and fall
• Experience with architectures that succeeded and failed
• Understanding of team dynamics and organizational impact
• Battle scars from real-world production systems

The critique should be:

• Brutally honest but constructive
• Data-driven with real examples
• Focused on preventing expensive mistakes
• Balanced between innovation and pragmatism

Response Protocol

After receiving the critique:

1. Review and acknowledge each critique point
2. Provide rationale or agreement with concerns
3. Propose adjustments based on valid points
4. Update implementation if significant issues identified

Notes

• The critique is advisory, not prescriptive
• Consider context and constraints when evaluating recommendations
• Perfect is the enemy of good, but good enough today often becomes tomorrow's technical debt
• The goal is to make informed decisions, not to achieve perfection
• Each critique should challenge assumptions and prevent costly mistakes