# Critique Plan > Hard, structured critique of a finished book plan — setup, outline, shadow, seeds, arcs, canon — against rhythm, plot, foreshadowing, magic system completeness, and worldbuilding economy. Produces a written critique (`notes/critique-plan.md`) with prioritized findings and concrete fixes. Use this after `plan-book` and before `write-chapter 1`. Invoke as "critique the plan" / "audita el planteamiento". - Skill: `abetatos/critique-plan` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add abetatos/critique-plan` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/abetatos/critique-plan/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: abetatos (https://skillmd.com/u/abetatos) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/abetatos/critique-plan --- # critique-plan You are running the **critique-plan** skill. The plan is finished (or the user thinks it is). Your job is to **find what's wrong with it** before any prose is written. The user has explicitly asked for this to be **adversarial**, not validating. Push back. The plan exists to be stress-tested. ## When to invoke - "Audita el planteamiento" / "critique the plan" / "is this plan ready?" / "review the book plan". - After `plan-book` and before `write-chapter 1` — even on user request. - Also reasonable as a re-check after a major plan revision. ## Hard rules - **Be specific.** "Structure is weak" is useless. "Act 1 spans 9 chapters but no character arc shows movement until chapter 7" is useful. - **Quote the offending line / cite the chapter number / name the seed id.** Always. - **Tier ruthlessly:** - **MUST fix** — breaks the contract: missing climax decision, seeds with no payoff, principals with no decision moment, magic with no cost or limits, outline chapters with TODO-only beats. - **SHOULD fix** — weakens the book: thin texture-beat plans, midpoint that doesn't overturn anything, faction declared but never used, action stacking, telegraphed seeds. - **CONSIDER** — taste-level. The user can ignore. - **Do not rewrite the plan.** Quote, name, point. Direction yes; substitute prose no. - **Adversarial bias.** When unsure, escalate the tier. A plan that passes critique-plan with zero issues is suspicious; you missed something. - **No leak from prior reviews — audit FRESH every time.** Do **not** read the previous `notes/critique-plan.md` or any earlier `_audit-plan.md` before forming your own findings. Each pass must be independent: a fix the author applied between runs has to survive a clean re-read, not a memory of "we already decided this is fine". Anchoring on the last verdict is an information leak that hides regressions. The only audit you trust is the one **you** generate this run (step 1). Overwrite, don't merge. ## Steps ### 0. Dispatch the analysis to a fresh subagent (main thread only) If you can spawn subagents (you have the Agent tool), **do not audit in this conversation**. Dispatch steps 1-4 to the `book-critic` subagent (Agent tool, `subagent_type: book-critic`) with the prompt `plan --series-slug --book-number `. It audits in a **fresh context** — no leak from this session, and you no longer have to `/clear` to re-audit in clean. It writes `notes/critique-plan.md` and returns the verdict + counts + load-bearing findings. Read that file, then go **straight to step 5** (report) and step 6 (the `AskUserQuestion` solution menu) — those are interactive and stay here, in the main thread. > When the **book-critic subagent itself** runs this skill it has no Agent tool, > so it cannot dispatch — it simply executes steps 1-4 directly and stops before > step 5. (That is how recursion is structurally prevented.) ### 1. Run the deterministic audit ```bash python3 .claude/skills/critique-plan/scripts/audit_plan.py \ --series-slug --book-number \ --output output//book-NN/notes/_audit-plan.md ``` The audit checks mechanical truths: gating fields, TODO-only chapters, seed validity, decision-chapter presence on each arc, canon entries absent from outline, magic completeness. Read this file — it gives you the baseline list of MUST-fix items. ### 2. Read the plan in full Read in this order: 1. `setup.md` 2. `plan/outline.md` 3. `plan/shadow.md` 4. `plan/seeds.md` 5. `plan/arcs.md` 6. `canon/characters.md`, `canon/factions.md`, `canon/magic.md`, `canon/world.md`, `canon/timeline.md` 7. References for what "good" looks like: - `references/fantasy-beats.md` - `references/seed-craft.md` - `references/magic-design-checklist.md` - `references/hard-magic-laws.md` ### 3. Run the qualitative pass Go through each of these categories. For every check, produce a finding (or "clean") for the critique buffer. #### 3a. Structure - Act boundaries — does act 1 take enough time to **inhabit** the world (slow-immersion), or does it rush? - Midpoint — does *something the reader believed* get overturned at the named midpoint chapter? Quote the chapter's beat sheet to prove it. - All-is-lost — is there a named chapter where everything appears beaten? Or does the plan skip from rising action to climax? - Climax — does the climax decision rest on **something that was planted earlier** (a magic capability seen, a relationship built, a seed paid)? If the climax depends on a tool that appears in its own chapter for the first time, that is `MUST fix`. #### 3b. Plot / trama - Causal chain — does each chapter's plot beat follow from the prior chapter's outcome, or are there leaps? - Motivation — at every plot beat, can the POV character plausibly *want* this with what they know at that point? Flag any decision that requires offstage information. - Coincidence load — count the moments where chance moves the plot. More than 2 in act 2 is a `SHOULD fix`. - Antagonist competence — does the antagonist have a coherent plan in the shadow file? If shadow says "they happen to be there", it is `MUST fix`. #### 3c. Ritmo / pacing - Chapter function — every chapter must do something for the larger arc. Flag chapters whose function is "more of the same". - Action stacking — two action-heavy chapters back-to-back without a quiet chapter between is `SHOULD fix` per `references/fantasy-beats.md` pacing rules. - Texture distribution — count chapters with explicit texture beats planned. If many lack texture beats, the book will come out short and dry. `SHOULD fix` per chapter. - Dwelling in act 1 — at least 60% of act 1 chapters should plan a texture beat. If under, the book won't feel inhabited. #### 3d. Magic system - Source, mechanic, costs (≥2), hard limits (≥3), thematic question, three escalation tiers — every one of these must be present and specific. `MUST fix` any missing. - Costs visible in prose — does the outline name **which chapters show the cost** in action? If costs are stated in canon but never appear in outline texture beats, the magic will feel cheap. - Apex tier visible only at climax — flag if apex magic appears in act 1 or 2. The climax loses its ceiling. - Thematic question forced at climax — does the climax beat sheet put the thematic question in the protagonist's hands? `MUST fix` if not. #### 3e. Characters - Distinct arcs — read each principal's want/need/lie/decision. If two principals have the **same lie** or the same decision shape, the book has only one arc. `SHOULD fix`. - Decision chapter alignment — the protagonist's decision moment should sit at the climax. Secondary characters' decisions should feed into the climax. Flag misalignments. - POV economy — is every declared POV needed? A POV with fewer than 3 chapters of presence is `CONSIDER`. A POV character who never carries a plot hinge is `SHOULD fix`. - Physical specifics — three concrete details per principal, no clichés. Vague entries are `SHOULD fix`. #### 3f. Subplots - Count subplots. If 0, flag — epic fantasy needs ≥1 subplot to breathe outside the protagonist. - Touchpoints — each subplot must touch the main plot at ≥3 points. Quote them. `MUST fix` if a subplot is hermetic. - Resolution timing — subplots should resolve before or during the climax. Any that resolve after are `SHOULD fix` (energy drains). - Distinct theme — subplot themes must differ from the main theme. If both arcs argue the same thing, the subplot is decoration. #### 3g. Foreshadowing / seeds - **Grimoire §14 coverage** — the audit cross-references the grimoire's §14 loaded-gun table against the plan: every loaded gun whose "Siembra en" includes this book MUST have a seed tagged `**Obligatory:** §14 `. Any the audit lists as missing is a **`MUST fix`** — a worldbuilding promise the plan forgot to plant (this is the count check that catches a dropped seed). A seed tagging a non-existent §14 row is a typo to fix. - **Series / trilogy coverage** — for a book that is NOT the last of a series, the audit checks it actually **seeds the books that come after it**, not just resolves itself. It flags later books the plan plants nothing for, thin seeding into the *immediate next* book (the middle book needs its payoffs planted now), and a seed/truth floor raised by the cross-book burden. These are `SHOULD fix` — a trilogy opener that only resolves itself leaves the next book to inherit nothing. (None of these are fixed counts; they scale with chapters and number of later books.) - Density — ≥ 8 seeds for an epic fantasy. Fewer is `SHOULD fix`. - Distribution — plants weighted toward act 1 / early act 2; payoffs weighted toward act 2B / act 3. The audit shows per-act counts. Flag inversions. - Telegraphing risk — read each seed's `how_to_plant`. If it sounds like the seed *is* the scene's purpose ("a strange old man with glowing eyes appears at the door"), it telegraphs. `SHOULD fix`, citing `references/seed-craft.md`. - Echo gaps — if a seed plants in chapter 3 and pays off in chapter 20 with no echoes between, the reader will have forgotten it. `SHOULD fix`. - Climax-as-payoff — does the climax pay off **at least one major seed**? If not, the climax floats. `MUST fix`. - **Trigger soundness (event payoffs).** For every seed whose payoff is an *event* (something breaks, fires, collapses, is discovered), is there a `Trigger` field naming an **intrinsic, already-seeded** cause? A payoff with no trigger, or a trigger that is a convenient external actor (a horse, a storm, a stranger who only shows up to cause it), is `SHOULD fix` — the writer will improvise a contrivance at writing time. Cite the seed id and the missing/weak trigger. - **Telegraph by dose & distance.** Flag any seed whose payoff is **≤2 chapters** from its plant **and** that also carries echoes or a heavy `how_to_plant` — it will be "seen coming a mile off". Each such seed needs a `Dose` field constraining it to one quiet touch. `SHOULD fix`, citing the plant/payoff chapters. - **Emotional spine present.** Are there ≥2 **resolution-type** seeds (a `Resolution image`: a planted felt-image the payoff inverts/transforms), so the book *resolves* and not merely *concludes*? Zero is `SHOULD fix` — the plot will pay off but the book will feel mechanical, "not woven". #### 3h. Worldbuilding economy - Named characters who never appear in the outline — the audit flags these. Each is `SHOULD fix` (either use them or cut them). - Named factions never used in outline — same. - Named places never used in outline — same. - Historical events declared but not echoed — historical weight exists to reverberate. If no chapter touches a declared past event, it is decoration. `CONSIDER`. #### 3i. Shadow honesty - Overview — does the shadow overview actually reveal a different story than the outline? If shadow restates the outline in code words, there is no hidden layer. `MUST fix`. - Master truths — `## SHADOW-TRUTH` records, and **enough of them**: not a thin handful but coverage of the protagonist's hidden nature, each antagonist's agenda, each institution's real function, and each major subplot (~12-20 for a 25-chapter book; the audit flags thin coverage). Each truth needs a **reveal path** — either `Revealed-by:` carrier seeds (the schedule lives there, never re-scheduled in the truth) or a manual `Confirm in:` for exposition-only truths. A truth with neither can never reach the reader: `MUST fix`. Carrier seed ids must exist in `seeds.md` (audit flags unknowns). `Reveal cap` must be honest — a truth that pays off in a later book caps below `confirmed`. - **Grimoire §14b coverage** — the audit cross-references the grimoire's §14b master-mystery table: every mystery *introduced in this book* MUST have a shadow truth tagged `**Mystery:** `. Any the audit lists as missing is a **`MUST fix`** (a promised mystery the plan won't carry); a truth tagging a non-existent mystery is a typo. - Reveal intensity — the cap names the **reader's** interior state (`hidden → sensed → suspected → confirmed`), never the writer's loudness. Flag any plan note that tells the writer to state a truth plainly ("hard hint", "make it obvious") — that defeats the shadow. - Antagonist knowledge — does the shadow describe what the antagonist *knows* that the protagonist doesn't? `SHOULD fix` if silent. #### 3j. Consistency - Cross-check names: do the principals in `arcs.md` match the names in `canon/characters.md`? Mismatches = `MUST fix`. - Cross-check seed plant/payoff chapters against outline: does the named chapter exist and have a relevant subtext beat? Mismatches = `SHOULD fix`. ### 4. Write the critique Write to: ``` output//book-NN/notes/critique-plan.md ``` Overwrite the previous file — never merge (see Hard rules: audit fresh). Structure (write the findings; leave the verdict to the script): ```markdown # Plan critique — **Verdict:** **Summary:** one-paragraph diagnosis. ## MUST fix - **[issue-type]** — concrete finding with a quoted line or chapter pointer → suggested direction. - ... ## SHOULD fix - ... ## CONSIDER - ... ## What works - 3-6 brief notes on what the plan does well. Important — the user needs the signal too. ``` Tag each MUST with a bracketed issue-type. Use these **REJECT-tier** slugs for structural breaks no surgical edit fixes: `[climax-unplanted]` (climax decision rests on a tool first appearing in its own chapter), `[shadow-single-layer]`, `[principal-no-decision]`, `[subplot-hermetic]`, `[magic-missing-pillar]`. Any other MUST (a missing `Trigger` to add, a seed to retag, a decision-chapter to realign) is REVISE-tier. **The verdict is computed, not judged.** After writing the findings, run: ```bash python3 scripts/compute_verdict.py \ --critique-file output//book-NN/notes/critique-plan.md --target plan ``` Write the printed verdict into `**Verdict:**`. Thresholds it applies: **PASS** = zero MUST and ≤6 SHOULD; **REJECT** = any REJECT-tier MUST; **REVISE** otherwise. When in doubt between REVISE- and REJECT-tier, pick the REVISE-tier tag. ### 5. Report to user Print: - Verdict and counts by tier. - The 3-5 most load-bearing findings (one line each). - Path to the critique file. Then go **straight into step 6** — do not just leave the verdict and wait. The contract is: critique-plan ALWAYS ends by offering possible solutions as an `AskUserQuestion` menu, not as free prose the author has to parse. ### 6. Offer solutions as an AskUserQuestion menu After reporting, surface the findings the author must act on as **choices with concrete solutions** — this is the required closing move of the skill. - **PASS, zero MUST/SHOULD** → one confirm question: "Plan looks ready — proceed to chapter 1?" with options `write chapter 1 (recommended)` / `keep polishing CONSIDER items` / `re-audit`. - **REVISE / REJECT** → take the load-bearing findings (MUST first, then SHOULD) and present them as `AskUserQuestion` questions, **up to 4 per call** (batch the rest into a second call after). For each finding: - `question`: the problem in one line, quoting the offending plan text / chapter / seed id. - `options`: **2-4 concrete solutions to THAT problem**, the one you recommend first and labelled "(recommended)". Each option is an actual fix (e.g. "Move the apex-tier reveal from ch7 to the climax (ch28)", "Add a Trigger to seed S-04: the dam was already cracked in ch9"), not a vague direction. The author can always pick "Other" to dictate their own fix. After the author chooses: - Apply each chosen solution by editing the specific `plan/*.md` / `canon/*.md` / `setup.md` file (you may edit directly once they've picked — the choice IS their consent for that fix). - Re-run `audit_plan.py` to confirm the mechanical issues cleared. Do **not** re-run the full qualitative pass in this same conversation — go to step 7. The re-audit happens in a FRESH session (the plan changed and this context is now heavy; re-auditing here invites failures). ### 7. Drop the /clear sentinel and HARD STOP critique-plan is a token-heavy step (it loads the whole plan + references). Once you have either applied fixes or confirmed PASS, **end the session** the same way locked chapters do: drop a sentinel so the Stop hook reminds the author to `/clear`, then STOP unconditionally. Write the sentinel **with a message** (the hook uses the file's content as the reminder text): - If the plan was edited this turn (verdict was REVISE/REJECT): ```bash printf '%s' '🔧 Plan editado. ESTÁNDAR: ejecuta /clear y reentra con resume-act — el dispatcher volverá a critique-plan para re-auditar en limpio (verdict aún no es PASS).' \ > output//book-NN/notes/.clear-pending ``` - If the verdict is PASS with nothing to fix: ```bash printf '%s' '✅ Plan PASS. ESTÁNDAR: ejecuta /clear y reentra con resume-act (→ escribir capítulo 1 en sesión fresca).' \ > output//book-NN/notes/.clear-pending ``` Then print a short closing (verdict, what was edited, path to the critique) and as the last line tell the author: ``` ESTÁNDAR: ejecuta /clear ahora y reentra con resume-act. ``` Do **not** continue into another critique pass or into writing in this conversation. The loop is: critique → fix → `/clear` → resume-act (→ critique-plan again until verdict PASS, then → write-novel). Because `detect_phase` only treats critique-plan as done when the verdict is **PASS**, this loop terminates correctly on its own. ## What this skill does NOT do - Does not modify `plan/*.md`, `canon/*.md`, or `setup.md` without explicit user direction. - Does not write prose. - Does not invent plot or characters. - Does not "fix" the plan — it diagnoses. The user repairs (with you if they ask).