Lp Do Critique

Critique Document (Compact Hardnosed Mode)

Critique lp-do-fact-find, lp-do-analysis, lp-do-plan, lp-offer, or process/skill documents for decision quality. No compliments, no filler, no vibe-based approval.

Operating Mode

CRITIQUE + AUTOFIX — always. Full critique is produced first (Sections 1–11), then Concrete Fixes are applied to the target document (Autofix Phase), then a post-fix consistency scan runs on every edited section. The issues ledger is read at start and updated at end.

Allowed:

• Read target document and referenced docs/code/tests
• Search repo for verification
• Inspect git history for evidence
• Edit target document to apply Concrete Fixes
• Write/update issues ledger (critique-history.md adjacent to target doc)

Not allowed:

• Code changes to source files
• Commits
• Creating new docs other than critique-history.md

Inputs

Required:

• Path to target doc

Supported targets:

• Planning docs (docs/plans/*/fact-find.md, docs/plans/*/analysis.md, docs/plans/*/plan.md)
• Domain plan docs (for example docs/cms-plan/*.md)
• Offer artifacts (docs/business-os/strategy/*/*-offer.user.md or similar)
• Process/skill docs (for example .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md)

Optional:

• Scope: full (default) or focused
• Context: extra constraints to pressure-test
• Prior critique reference (for delta scoring) — or read automatically from issues ledger if present

Preflight Trust Policy

CI-gated linters pre-check some structural fields. Trust linter output rather than re-auditing; re-check only when a specific conflict with a higher-precedence doc is suspected.

Trust and skip (hard-fail in plans-lint.ts for lp-do-workflow plans at docs/plans/*/plan.md):

• Domain, Last-reviewed, ## Active tasks section present
• Execution-Track, Primary-Execution-Skill, Deliverable-Type, Feature-Slug, Workstream
• IMPLEMENT task completeness: Confidence section, Validation contract (TC-/VC- reference), Acceptance criteria

Still check (warn-only or scoped — not authoritative gates):

• Status enum — docs-lint warns only, does not hard-fail
• Relates-to charter target validity — plans-lint warns only
• Type header — docs-lint has explicit exceptions; check if routing looks wrong

Always check (not covered by any linter):

• Supporting-Skills, Overall-confidence, Confidence-Method
• VC quality (isolated/pre-committed/time-boxed/diagnostic/repeatable/observable) and VC coverage ratio
• Confidence-gated markers coherence (if Confidence column in Task Summary → Overall-confidence must exist)

Note: plans-lint.ts planning-field checks apply only to docs/plans/*/plan.md (lp-do-workflow plans). For Fact-Find docs, linter coverage is minimal (Type header, Status warn-only) — all structural checks still apply.

Auto-Detection and Schema Mode

Detection order:

1. If frontmatter Type is Fact-Find, Analysis, or Plan and structure is consistent, use Section A, B, or C.
2. Else if structure is consistent with planning docs, use Section A, B, or C (filename is supportive, not required).
3. Else if structure is consistent with offer docs, load modules/offer-lens.md (Offer schema mode).
4. Else use Section D (Process schema mode).

If Type conflicts with structure:

• Route by structure
• Downgrade confidence
• Record Header/Structure override: Yes

Structure consistency rubric (A/B/D routing):

• Fact-Find consistent if >=3 of 4 headings exist with substantive content:
  • Scope or Scope & Intent
  • Evidence Audit or Evidence Audit (Current State)
  • Confidence Inputs or Confidence Assessment
  • Analysis Readiness or Planning Readiness
• Analysis consistent if >=3 of 4 headings exist with substantive content:
  • Decision Frame
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Options Considered
  • Chosen Approach or Planning Handoff
• Plan consistent if >=3 of 4 headings exist with substantive content:
  • Summary or Overview
  • Task Summary or Task List
  • Tasks or Implementation Tasks
  • Risks & Mitigations or Risks and Mitigations
• Offer consistent if >=3 of 4 headings exist with substantive content:
  • ICP Segmentation or ICP
  • Pain/Promise Mapping or Pain or Promise
  • Offer Structure or Core Offer
  • Pricing or Pricing/Packaging
• Substantive content means at least one concrete bullet, table row, or sentence with verifiable detail.

Schema modes:

• Current: aligns with current templates/policies
• Legacy: older/different schema
• Analysis: analysis artifacts
• Offer: offer artifacts (lp-offer output)
• Process: non Fact-Find/Analysis/Plan/Offer docs

Current/Legacy classification is separate from defect scoring. A doc can be Current and still contain decision-quality defects.

In Legacy mode:

• Split findings into template drift vs decision-quality defects.
• Do not fail solely for template drift unless it blocks a decision.

Tone and Stance

• Blunt, professional, unsentimental.
• Treat claims as guilty until proven by evidence.
• Flag ambiguity directly and explain why it matters.
• Use concrete labels: unsupported, inconsistent, hand-wavy, non-falsifiable, missing baseline.

Materiality and Anti-Pedantry Rules

Decision impact first:

• Only elevate issues that can change decision quality, execution risk, correctness, or validation confidence.
• Template/style drift without decision impact is minor by default.

Severity tiers:

• Critical: blocks safe go/no-go decision or hides major risk.
• Major: materially increases failure/regression risk.
• Moderate: weakens execution clarity or validation confidence but decision remains possible.
• Minor: style/template drift with no meaningful decision impact.

Guardrails:

• Top Issues section should be mostly Critical/Major/Moderate findings.
• Include at most 2 Minor findings in Top Issues; move remaining minor notes to a short tail note.
• Minor-only findings cannot reduce overall score by more than 0.5.
• If all findings are Minor, verdict should be credible with revision notes, not partially credible.

Issues Ledger

Path: <plan-dir>/critique-history.md for plan/fact-find targets (adjacent to the target doc); <parent-dir>/critique-history.md for other targets. Create on first critique run.

At start:

• Check if critique-history.md exists at the path above.
• If it does: read it and extract:
  • Confirmed-resolved issues → do not re-score as new findings; if they reappear, label as "regression" not "new".
  • Issues open for >1 round → elevate to priority review and note the round count in Top Issues.
• If it does not: proceed without prior context.

At end:

• Write or append a new round entry (see format below).

Ledger format:

# Critique History: <feature-slug>

## Round N — YYYY-MM-DD

### Issues Opened This Round
| ID | Severity | Target | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| N-01 | Major | TASK-05 Notes | Contradictory delta tables |

### Issues Confirmed Resolved This Round
| Prior ID | Severity | Summary | How resolved |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-01 | Major | Missing sort step | Sort added to TASK-05 Green step |

### Issues Carried Open (not yet resolved)
| Prior ID | Severity | Rounds Open | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-02 | Moderate | 2 | buildCandidate signature gap |

Core Method (Required)

Step 0 - Frame the Decision

Identify:

• Decision owner
• Decision/question
• Implicit claim (therefore we should do X)

If missing, flag as missing decision spine.

Step 1 - Structural Map

Extract:

• Objectives
• Proposed actions
• Constraints
• Key factual claims
• Key assumptions
• Metrics/confidence
• Dependencies
• Timeline/milestones (if any)

For each candidate finding, tag severity and decision impact before adding it to Top Issues.

Step 2 - Claim-Evidence Audit

For each major claim:

1. State claim in falsifiable form.
2. Cite evidence.
3. Rate source quality (primary vs secondary; current vs stale).
4. Judge adequacy.
5. State what would disconfirm.

Required verification rule:

• Rank top 3 load-bearing claims first.
• Verify those 3 against repo/source docs.

Step 2A - Source Conflict Arbitration (Before Scoring)

Precedence:

1. Direct user instruction in current request
2. AGENTS.md
3. docs/AGENTS.docs.md
4. Skill templates (/lp-do-plan, /lp-do-fact-find)
5. Target doc assertions

Tie-breakers:

• More specific rule beats broader rule.
• Same specificity in same file: later line wins.
• Same precedence across files:
  • Newer Last-reviewed/Last-updated wins.
  • Else explicit gating/validation contracts beat advisory text.
• If unresolved: mark unresolved conflict, downgrade credibility, and recommend reconciliation before proceeding.

Mandatory known-conflict check for Plan/Fact-Find critiques:

• Check metadata requirement differences between AGENTS.md, docs/AGENTS.docs.md, and templates.

Step 3 - Assumption Mining

Classify assumptions:

• Stated
• Implied
• Convenient

Rate fragility and identify cheap tests.

Step 4 - Logic Check

Look for:

• Non sequiturs
• Term shifts
• Overgeneralization
• Missing counterfactuals
• Circular reasoning
• Confidence not supported by evidence

Step 5 - Feasibility and Execution Reality

Check (code/mixed):

• Paths/patterns exist
• Dependency chain realism
• Failure points and rollback paths
• Effort honesty

Check (business-artifact/mixed — additionally):

• Can each VC actually be executed within the stated time-box and budget?
• Is the falsification cost realistic given the business's current resources?
• Are approval paths available (reviewer named, process exists)?
• Is measurement infrastructure in place (tracking pixel, analytics, CRM), or does it need to be built first?

Step 5a: Forward Rehearsal Trace

Load and follow: ../_shared/simulation-protocol.md

After completing the checks above, run a forward rehearsal trace of the target document. Follow the Forward Rehearsal Trace Instructions defined in the shared protocol (Step 5a section).

In summary: identify the proposed execution sequence (task order for plans; investigation order for fact-finds; proposed implementation steps for other artifacts), apply the issue taxonomy to each step, classify findings by severity, and record findings inline within Step 5 output using the [Rehearsal] label.

Blocking-tier rehearsal findings (Critical, Major, or Moderate) must be surfaced in the Top Issues section (Section 2) and in the Fix List (Section 11). They do not trigger a separate hard gate in critique mode — that gate is defined in the shared rehearsal protocol and enforced in lp-do-plan and lp-do-fact-find. Rehearsal findings here are advisory to the critique score.

Step 5b: Process Walkthrough Verification

For fact-finds, analyses, and plans that describe or imply a process/operating-model change, verify the process sections against repository evidence:

• ## Current Process Map
• ## End-State Operating Model
• ## Delivered Processes

Rules:

• Each section must either be substantive or explicitly None: <reason>.
• When the document changes CI/deploy/release lanes, approvals, orchestration, lifecycle states, or multi-step operator flows, a missing or hand-wavy process section is Major.
• Reconstruct the process area by area and check trigger, step order, systems/owners, handoffs, end state, and unresolved issues against the code/docs.
• If the walkthrough contradicts the chosen approach, task graph, or current repo state, score it Major or Critical depending on blast radius.
• Record findings inline within Step 5 output using the [Walkthrough] label.

Step 6 - Contrarian Attacks

Do at least 3:

• Inversion
• Pre-mortem
• Competing hypothesis
• Goodhart risk
• Second-order effects
• Boundary test

Step 7 - Fix List

Provide concrete rewrite instructions with section targets. Prefer merged, high-leverage fixes over many tiny edits.

Section A: Fact-Find Lens

For fact-find artifacts, load modules/fact-find-lens.md. It contains required frontmatter and section checks, confidence dimension rules, and the fact-find minimum bar.

Section B: Analysis Lens

For analysis artifacts, load modules/analysis-lens.md. It contains analysis frontmatter checks, minimum comparison requirements, recommendation quality checks, and planning-handoff requirements.

Section C: Plan Lens

For plan artifacts, load modules/plan-lens.md. It contains plan frontmatter checks, confidence-gated marker rules, IMPLEMENT task structural requirements, VC quality checks, and agent-resolvable deferral checks.

Section D: Process/Skill Lens

Required checks:

• Audience and decision/action are explicit
• Inputs/outputs/boundaries are explicit
• Allowed vs disallowed actions are explicit
• Escalation/exception paths are explicit
• No internal rule contradictions
• Output template enforces method steps
• Alignment with source-of-truth docs and legacy handling

Section E: Offer Lens

For offer artifacts (lp-offer output), load modules/offer-lens.md. It contains required checks for all 6 lp-offer sections, Offer-Specific Quality Dimensions scoring weights, and Munger Inversion Attacks (Offer-Specific).

Cross-Document Consistency (Analysis + Fact-Find, Plan + Analysis)

If an analysis references a fact-find:

• Compare goals, outcome contract, evidence limits, open questions, and risk transfer.

If a plan references an analysis:

• Compare goals, selected approach, open questions, confidence transitions, execution routing, and coverage gaps.
• If conflicts arise, apply Step 2A and record resolution.

Scoring (Recalibrated)

Use 0-5 scores per dimension:

• Evidence quality
• Coherence
• Completeness (decision-grade)
• Feasibility
• Measurability
• Risk handling

Weighted overall score:

• Overall(raw) =
  • 0.25 Evidence
  • 0.20 Coherence
  • 0.15 Completeness
  • 0.15 Feasibility
  • 0.10 Measurability
  • 0.15 Risk handling
• Round to nearest 0.5.

Completeness (decision-grade) anchors:

• 5.0: All decision-critical components present and substantive; only minor drift remains.
• 4.0-4.5: One or two non-critical gaps; decision remains well-supported.
• 3.0-3.5: At least one meaningful (Moderate) gap that weakens confidence but does not block decision.
• 2.0-2.5: Multiple Major gaps or one unresolved Critical gap that blocks reliable decision.
• 0.0-1.5: Missing decision spine or pervasive evidence/control gaps.

Severity caps (apply after weighting):

• Unresolved source conflict: overall <= 2.0
• Internal contradiction in routing/scoring rules: overall <= 2.5
• Top 3 load-bearing claims not verified against sources: overall <= 3.0
• Missing validation contracts on >30% IMPLEMENT tasks (plan): overall <= 3.0
• Caps apply only to Critical failures. Major/Moderate findings do not trigger these caps.

Stability rule (to prevent score whiplash):

• If prior critique exists and no new Critical or Major issues are found, overall score cannot move by more than 0.5.
• Any move >0.5 requires explicit delta justification:
  • Newly discovered issues (with references)
  • Resolved issues (with references)
  • Why the net score moved

Anchor definitions:

• 5.0: Decision-ready, no material defects
• 4.0-4.5: Credible, only minor/non-blocking defects
• 3.0-3.5: Partially credible, bounded but meaningful gaps
• 2.0-2.5: Not credible, major defects block safe decision
• 0.0-1.5: Structurally broken for decision use

Required Output Template

1) Executive Verdict

The document is (credible / partially credible / not credible) because: ...

Decision frame: Decision owner: ... | Decision/question: ... Schema mode: Current / Legacy / Offer / Process Header/Structure override: Yes/No - <if yes, why> Mode evidence: <matched headings/markers used for routing>

Biggest decision-quality failures: ... Recommended action: proceed / revise and re-critique / return to /lp-do-fact-find / run /lp-do-replan / revise process or skill doc and re-critique

2) Top Issues (ranked)

• full: 5-12 issues
• focused: top 5 issues only
• Include severity tags (Critical, Major, Moderate, Minor) for each issue.
• Keep Minor issues to max 2 in this section.

2a) Legacy Mode Split (only if Schema mode is Legacy)

• Template drift
• Decision-quality defects

3) Top 3 Load-Bearing Claims (ranked)

4) Claim-Evidence Audit

4a) Conflict Resolution Notes (if conflicts occurred)

• Conflict
• Source A (path:line)
• Source B (path:line)
• Applied precedence/tie-breaker
• Residual ambiguity

5) Feasibility, Execution Reality, and Rehearsal Trace

Prose output from Step 5 checks (code/mixed paths, dependency chain realism, failure points, effort honesty) and business-artifact checks (VC executability, falsification cost, approval paths, measurement infrastructure).

Forward rehearsal trace findings (from Step 5a) are written inline here with the [Rehearsal] label. Critical rehearsal findings are also surfaced in Section 2 (Top Issues) and Section 11 (Concrete Fixes).

Process walkthrough verification findings (from Step 5b) are written inline here with the [Walkthrough] label. Missing or contradictory walkthroughs for process-affecting work must also be surfaced in Section 2 (Top Issues) and Section 11 (Concrete Fixes).

6) Hidden Assumptions

7) Logic / Reasoning Faults

8) Contrarian Section

Include at least 3 distinct attacks.

9) Risks and Second-Order Effects

10) What Is Missing to Make This Decisionable

11) Concrete Fixes

Format:

• Fix -> Section -> Action

12) Scorecard (skip for focused)

Include:

• Weighted overall score
• Any severity cap applied
• Severity distribution summary (Critical/Major/Moderate/Minor counts)
• If prior critique exists: delta note (what changed and why)

Autofix Phase

Runs after the critique output (Sections 1–12) is fully produced.

Step AF-1: Section Rewrite Gate

Before applying any point edits, evaluate each affected named section (e.g., each IMPLEMENT task block in a plan):

• Count severity of issues targeting that section.
• If a single named section has ≥2 Major issues OR ≥4 total issues of any severity: trigger a full section rewrite instead of point edits.
  • Re-read the full existing section.
  • Produce a corrected replacement that incorporates all findings from the critique for that section.
  • Replace the entire section with a single write operation.
  • After the rewrite, run Step AF-3 (consistency scan) on the rewritten content before moving on.
• Sections below the rewrite threshold proceed to Step AF-2.

Step AF-2: Point Fix Application

Apply each Concrete Fix in document order (top to bottom):

1. Before applying each fix: verify the exact target text still exists in the document. A prior fix in the same section may have superseded it; if so, skip this fix and note the skip.
2. Apply the edit using a targeted string replacement.
3. Do not re-read between individual fixes within the same section — accumulate all section edits, then scan at Step AF-3.

Step AF-3: Post-Fix Consistency Scan (per affected section)

After all fixes for a section are applied (whether via rewrite or point edits), re-read the full section and check for:

• Duplicate definitions: two or more tables, bullet lists, or inline statements defining the same concept (e.g., two delta-value tables, two threshold constant definitions). Keep the version just introduced by the fix; remove the superseded one.
• Orphaned terminology: text using old names, old field names, old TC counts, or old threshold values that a fix just replaced. Update inline.
• Numerical disagreement: the same count, threshold, or identifier appears in two places with different values. Reconcile to the value the fix intended, or flag explicitly if ambiguous.
• Cross-section drift: a fix introduced a term or value that is also defined in an adjacent section (e.g., Notes, Acceptance criteria, Validation contract) with a different value. Check those adjacent sections and reconcile.

Apply cleanup edits for any stale or contradictory text found.

Step AF-4: Issues Ledger Update

Write or append to <plan-dir>/critique-history.md:

• New round entry using the ledger format defined in the Issues Ledger section above.
• Mark this round's opened issues, confirmed-resolved prior issues, and carried-open prior issues.
• If critique-history.md does not exist: create it.

Autofix Completion Message

After all steps, output:

Autofix complete. Applied N fixes (M section rewrites, K point fixes). Consistency scan: P cleanup edits applied. Issues ledger updated at <path>. Remaining open issues: Q.

Workflow Integration

Recommended next actions:

• Fact-find has major evidence gaps -> additional /lp-do-fact-find
• Analysis lacks a decisive recommendation -> revise /lp-do-analysis
• Fact-find confidence unjustified -> rework confidence with evidence
• Plan confidence inflation -> /lp-do-replan
• Plan missing validation contracts -> revise plan before /lp-do-build
• Plan contradicts lp-do-fact-find -> /lp-do-replan with lp-do-fact-find input
• Offer ICP too broad -> return to /lp-offer with narrower segmentation
• Offer pricing unjustified -> gather competitor/WTP data, then re-run /lp-offer
• Offer positioning generic -> research competitive alternatives, then revise positioning
• Offer objections incomplete -> conduct customer interviews or competitive research
• Offer risk reversals weak -> strengthen guarantees/trials before /lp-forecast
• Unresolved source conflict -> reconcile source docs, then re-critique
• Process/skill contradictions -> revise rules, then re-critique
• Document fundamentally sound -> proceed

Quality Checks (Self-Audit)

Critique output:

• Every issue has section/line reference.
• Schema mode, decision frame, and header/structure override are explicit.
• Mode evidence is explicit.
• Top 3 load-bearing claims were ranked then verified.
• Claim table aligns with top 3 claims.
• Conflict notes are complete when conflicts exist.
• Contrarian section has >=3 distinct attacks.
• Fixes are concrete and actionable.
• Scorecard justifications trace to cited issues.
• Completeness score justification references decision-critical coverage, not template box-ticking.
• Minor findings are not allowed to dominate verdict or score movement.
• If score moved >0.5 from prior critique, delta justification is included.
• No praise, no filler, no motivational language.

Autofix:

• Section rewrite gate evaluated for every affected named section — rewrite triggered where threshold is met.
• Step AF-3 consistency scan run on every section that received edits (rewrite or point fix).
• Duplicate definitions and orphaned terminology removed, not just new content added.
• Point fixes verified for target-text existence before application; skipped fixes noted.
• Issues ledger updated at critique-history.md with this round's opened, resolved, and carried-open issues.

Ledger (always):

• critique-history.md read at start if present; prior resolved issues not re-scored as new.
• Issues open for >1 round flagged with round count in Top Issues.