# Adaptogen Critique > Dispatch a fresh-context adversarial critique of a run captured by adaptogen-run, applying a strict evidence gate (cited + independently re-checked) before any finding is allowed through to adaptogen-land. Use when adaptogen's router sends you here with a run report in hand. - Skill: `anentrypoint/adaptogen-critique` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add anentrypoint/adaptogen-critique` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/anentrypoint/adaptogen-critique/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: anentrypoint (https://skillmd.com/u/anentrypoint) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/anentrypoint/adaptogen-critique --- # adaptogen-critique You are in the `adaptogen-critique` state of the adaptogen DAG, always entered from `adaptogen-run` with a fresh report in hand. This skill is self-contained: everything needed to run a real adversarial critique is on this page. ## What must hold here, always - **Never dispatch this critique inline in your own context, and never reuse the `adaptogen-run` agent.** A fresh-context Agent tool dispatch only -- it must not have seen the first run's process, only its report, so it has no reason to go easy on it. - **The one exception: leaf-agent mode** (carried forward from `adaptogen-run`). If you are yourself a subagent and cannot spawn a nested Agent, do the critique as a deliberately fresh-eyed self-review instead: re-read every cited file/command from disk yourself -- never trust your own `adaptogen-run` report's paraphrase -- before accepting any finding. - **What "evidence-backed" concretely means, and this is the gate that decides what reaches `adaptogen-land`:** a finding is eligible only when both hold: (a) it cites a specific file+line or a specific command, and (b) the critic independently re-opened that exact file (or re-ran that exact command) itself and its own reading matches the finding -- not the first run's paraphrase of it. A finding neither cited nor independently re-checked does not qualify, no matter how plausible it sounds. - **Findings about the run's diligence are not the same as findings about the target's text.** A finding that the `adaptogen-run` execution should have double-checked something is a note about that one run, not evidence the target's file is wrong -- it is not landable in `adaptogen-land` unless it also identifies a specific place the target's own wording caused or permitted the gap. ## Do this 1. Dispatch a fresh-context Agent (or, in leaf-agent mode, do this yourself as a fresh-eyed self-review) with this brief, every `<...>` slot filled and nothing else changed: > Only job: find fault with this run's result and process. The target > under test is ``; the concrete task it was > run against was: ``. Re-check that file/those sibling > skill files and any command the run reports touching yourself -- > do not trust the first run's paraphrase or its line numbers. Report > one finding per category below, even if a category is empty -- do > not skip a category just because nothing jumps out. > 1. By-design flagged as broken -- correct behavior misread as a bug. > 2. Mis-attributed evidence -- a claim that doesn't match what your > own independent re-check of the same file/command shows. > 3. Unverified claim -- "it worked" with nothing cited to back it. > 4. A real bug in the host project, not just the target's own prose > -- a sibling script it called, a config file, anything the run > touched. > [FIRST RUN'S FULL REPORT, VERBATIM]: `` 2. When the critic's re-read and the run's claim disagree (category 2), re-read the file yourself as a tiebreaker -- the file on disk wins over both reports, always. 3. Check the "2+ independent runs" bar (Hard Rule 5 in the router) before treating any finding as grounds to *remove* an existing case or capability: grep the target's `git log`/commit messages for a prior commit citing the same failure. None found means this is occurrence #1 -- add a case/fix, do not remove anything. 4. Separate the returned findings into: landable (defect in the target's own file(s), evidence-backed per the definition above) vs. not landable (by-design, run-diligence-only, or unverifiable). A finding about a genuinely unrelated file or project outside the target's own scope is neither landed nor discarded -- record it plainly as an out-of-scope finding for a future pass. ## Transition - At least one landable finding -> dispatch `Skill(skill="adaptogen-land")` now. State explicitly: every landable finding with its citation, and the target's resolved absolute path. - Zero landable findings (by-design misreads and unverifiable claims only) -> this is the actual stopping point of the whole machine, not a fixed pass count -- reaching it means the fix already landed and held, or the target had nothing wrong to find this pass. Report the critique's findings and why none landed, and stop (`STOP`, no further dispatch).