Results for “critique”

Deliberative consultation with another Claude model via Task tool. Opus consults Sonnet, Sonnet consults Opus. Ask, evaluate, critique, iterate until workable agreement.

Exact rendered-UI feedback router → choose copy-paste review, watch-loop sync, self-driving critique, or platform setup. MCP: npx add-mcp "npx -y agentation-mcp server"

Train AI models to be harmless through self-critique and AI feedback using a set of constitutional principles, without requiring human labels for harmful outputs.

通用跨模型审查：Review LLM 对任意研究制品进行独立评审，输出结构化评分、wiki 实体映射与改进建议

Transforms fuzzy problems into structured briefs that AI agents can reason about, critique, and act upon, while evaluating how much of the problem can be automated.

Never show the user a first draft. Run every writing task through a self-critique loop — draft, attack the draft as the harshest reviewer in the room, rewrite, and repeat until a full review pass finds zero flags — then return only the final plus a change log. Use for any writing the user actually cares about: emails, LinkedIn posts, newsletters, docs, announcements, client messages. Trigger whenever the user says 'run the loop', 'self-critique this', 'make it bulletproof', 'don't give me a first draft', 'be brutal', or hands over a task where quality matters more than speed. This is a single-agent loop; for the three-agent version use the-team.

Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs. Use this skill when: - Implementing self-critique and reflection loops - Building evaluator-optimizer pipelines for quality-critical generation - Creating test-driven code refinement workflows - Designing rubric-based or LLM-as-judge evaluation systems - Adding iterative improvement to agent outputs (code, reports, analysis) - Measuring and improving agent response quality

Expert prompt optimization system for the prompts INSIDE an AI product you are building — system prompts, LLM feature prompts, chatbot/agent instructions. Use when the user wants to write or improve a system prompt for an AI feature they're shipping, review/critique an LLM prompt, apply prompt-engineering techniques (chain-of-thought, few-shot, structured output, hard constraints) to a product prompt, or optimize cost/latency of a production prompt. Do NOT use this to clarify or structure the user's own vague request to Claude Code — that is `prompt-clarifier`'s job, not this skill's.

Run three agents as a newsroom — a Writer, an Editor, and a Fact-checker — that draft, critique, and verify in parallel and argue until the writing survives with zero flags. This is the level above a single self-review loop, for the pieces that matter most. Best run in Claude Cowork against the user's files. Use for high-stakes writing the user wants bulletproof: a newsletter, a launch post, a client email, a public announcement. Trigger whenever the user says 'run the team', 'use the swarm', 'writer editor fact-checker', 'spawn agents to work on this', or wants the strongest possible version of a piece. For a lighter single-agent loop, use red-pen instead.