Results for “critique”

Embody the persona of Al-Ghazali to provide spiritual guidance, philosophical critique, and practical remedies for spiritual ailments.

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"

Audits typographic decisions on a screen for scale usage, readability, consistency, and token compliance, providing specific fixes.

Structured framework for reviewing UI designs, evaluating visual hierarchy, consistency, accessibility, spacing, typography, and color usage, and providing actionable improvement recommendations.

Runs an adversarial, decision-aware review of all session work before committing, checking decision adherence and code maintainability, and applies only user-authorized fixes.

Provides frontend design direction, design systems, visual philosophy, and production-grade UI styling for web interfaces, including layout critique, usability auditing, and asset generation.

Audits colour decisions on a screen for contrast ratios, palette coherence, semantic meaning, and accessibility, flagging deviations and recommending specific corrections.

Launches four parallel adversarial review agents covering security, scope, fidelity, and test gaps, then synthesizes findings into a ranked verdict for plans or feature branches.

Check a screen's brand expression by comparing it against mood, voice, and design token reference files, flagging divergences and suggesting corrections.

Audits a design against Dieter Rams' ten principles, scores each with evidence, and produces a verdict with a handoff prompt for new, refined, or redesigned output.

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.

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.

Delegates UI, UX, and visual design tasks to Grok 4.5 through a dedicated CLI, covering critique, art direction, HTML mockups, and SVG assets.

Run a heuristic evaluation of interactive UIs against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics and interaction add-ons, scoring the rendered artifact and producing a prioritized fix list.

Anthropic's method for training harmless AI through self-improvement. Two-phase approach - supervised learning with self-critique/revision, then RLAIF (RL from AI Feedback). Use for safety alignment, reducing harmful outputs without human labels. Powers Claude's safety system.

Anthropic's method for training harmless AI through self-improvement. Two-phase approach - supervised learning with self-critique/revision, then RLAIF (RL from AI Feedback). Use for safety alignment, reducing harmful outputs without human labels. Powers Claude's safety system.

Orchestrate a full theory-first idea discovery pipeline. Use when the user wants the analysis counterpart of idea-discovery: literature context, proof-oriented idea generation, novelty checking, DeepSeek critique, and an analysis plan instead of an experiment-first workflow.

Ruthless product and app critique for Nick's workflow. Use when evaluating an app, landing page, flow, or product experience to identify why users may bounce, distrust it, fail to activate, or never come back. Focus on practical weaknesses, not polite fluff.

Audit a landing page or marketing site through one lens: what is the ONE thing this page wants the visitor to do, and does every element on the page move them toward it? Reconstructs who lands on the page and why, spawns visitor-persona agents to react to it cold, maps the belief chain a visitor must climb before acting, inventories CTAs and everything competing with them, then delivers a prioritized cut/move/add/rewrite plan. Use whenever the user asks "what do we want people to do on this page", "is this page converting", "critique this landing page", "why would someone book/buy/sign up here", "audit the funnel on X page", or wants strategic critique of page content and structure (not visual polish). Works from frontend code in a repo, a live URL via browser tools, or pasted copy/screenshots. Judges persuasion and intent-alignment; for flow usability and friction use ux-audit, for visual and aesthetic quality use the impeccable critique/audit skills.

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality by assessing experimental design, identifying biases and confounders, and applying evidence grading frameworks like GRADE and Cochrane Risk of Bias.

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

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

Use this skill when the user requests to review, analyze, critique, or summarize academic papers, research articles, preprints, or scientific publications. Supports comprehensive structured reviews covering methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and constructive feedback generation. Trigger on queries involving paper URLs, uploaded PDFs, arXiv links, or requests like "review this paper", "analyze this research", "summarize this study", or "write a peer review".

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

Visual UI review, browser-based design QA, and product-effectiveness critique for Nick's apps using Chromium/Playwright. Use when reviewing a live page or deploy to judge not just visual polish, but whether the interface supports clarity, trust, activation, conversion, responsiveness, and the product's strategic wedge. Best used after build/deploy to push a UI from acceptable to excellent with evidence from screenshots and browser inspection.

Routing-first visual approval gate for AI agent plans, markdown specs, and diffs. Use when a human needs to review a concrete plan before execution, inspect a targeted diff in a browser, mark up a spec/PRD/architecture note, or set up the review loop on Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Codex CLI, or OpenCode. Route planning/spec creation to `task-planning` or `ralph`, broad PR-policy review to `code-review`, rendered-UI critique to `agentation`, and fresh-session browser verification to `browser-harness`.

UI/UX design intelligence and implementation guidance for building polished interfaces. Use when the user asks for UI design, UX flows, information architecture, visual style direction, design systems/tokens, component specs, copy/microcopy, accessibility, or to generate/critique/refine frontend UI (HTML/CSS/JS, React, Next.js, Vue, Svelte, Tailwind). Includes workflows for (1) generating new UI layouts and styling, (2) improving existing UI/UX, (3) producing design-system tokens and component guidelines, and (4) turning UX recommendations into concrete code changes.

Use when the user asks to audit, review, critique, or "make sure it looks right" on a deployed web page, component, or Figma mockup — or when they mention visual issues, CRO, conversion rate, design consistency, accessibility, "feels off", "looks bad", "make it pop", "looks like AI slop". Triggers on keywords like "audit the page", "review the design", "what's wrong with this UI", "CRO audit", "a11y check", "visual hierarchy", "typography check", "does this look right". Activation also recommended after any significant frontend change on gotcontext.ai before calling the work done.

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.

Audits any draft against Built GTM voice rules and returns specific, line-level violations with rewrites. Not a general style critique. A rule-based QA check. Every violation gets a specific fix. Trigger on "check this", "does this sound like me", "voice check", "is this on brand", "review this draft", "what's wrong with this", "flag the AI tells in this", "make sure this sounds like me", or any request to audit a draft against Heath's Built GTM voice before publishing. Can be used on posts, articles, newsletter editions, comments, or any Built GTM content.

Simulates a full multi-reviewer journal review PANEL — 5 personas (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + a Devil's Advocate) debate a manuscript and produce a consensus Editorial Decision (accept/minor/major/reject) plus a prioritized Revision Roadmap. Modes: full, re-review (verify revisions addressed prior comments), quick, methodology-focus, Socratic guided. Use for: simulate peer review, mock review panel, editorial review before submission, multiple reviewer perspectives, re-review of a revised manuscript, or 'critique my paper hard'. For a single-reviewer referee report use alterlab-peer-review; for rubric/grade scoring use alterlab-scholar-eval; to write/revise the paper use alterlab-paper-writer. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

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.

Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.