Critique

# 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.

#### 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}