Critical Analysis

Skill: Critical Analysis (v1.1)

Multi-role critique system for ML experiments and architecture decisions. Based on: Solo Performance Prompting (NAACL 2024), CrewAI role taxonomy, Bermingham 13-agent DA-as-gate, De Bono Six Thinking Hats (Black Hat gating).

When to Load (Auto-Default Behavior)

Before any of the following — run Quick Mode without waiting for user request:

• Architecture or design decision (new integration, refactor, layer change)
• ML experiment launch (clustering, training run, hyperparameter search)
• Infrastructure change (Terraform, Docker, secrets, permissions)
• Parameter choice without prior ablation

Design doc check: for any architectural decision, verify design-doc.md exists and guides this decision. If missing → [DA]: "No design doc — decisions are ungrounded."

Quick Mode: if all 8 roles return "clear" — proceed. If any role flags CRITICAL — surface it to the user before proceeding.

This is NOT optional. Critique runs before code, not after.

8-Role Taxonomy

Quick Mode Protocol (SPP — Solo Performance Prompting)

Run all 8 roles simultaneously in your reasoning. Output before proceeding:

QUICK CRITIQUE:
[Security]:  <finding + what was evaluated, or "clear — evaluated: X">
[Perf]:      <finding + what was evaluated, or "clear — evaluated: X">
[DA]:        <top objection with 90-day scenario, or "no blockers — reason">
[Crutch]:    <pattern or crutch + evidence, or "pattern — reusable: evidence">
[Strategy]:  <flag only if new dep/3+ files/new contract; else "below threshold">
[ML]:        <plateau/pivot signal, or "N/A — not an experiment">
[TestCov]:   <missing test areas, or "clear — existing tests cover: X">
[Obs]:       <observability gap, or "clear — logs/metrics in place">

VERDICT: PROCEED / BLOCKED by [Role] — [reason]

Anti-collapse rule: Before writing "clear" for any role — cite what was evaluated. WRONG: [Security]: clear RIGHT: [Security]: clear — evaluated: no new endpoints, no user input, no new deps

[Strategy] falsifiability threshold: Flag ONLY if ≥1 of:

• Introduces new external dependency
• Touches >3 files
• Creates new interface contract
• Estimated follow-up work >5 person-days Otherwise: below threshold — not flagging

If BLOCKED: surface the finding to the user. Do not write code around a CRITICAL finding.

ML Experiment Audit Protocol

Before any experiment launch, answer all 4 checks:

PLATEAU CHECK Plateau = absolute delta < 0.01 AND relative delta < 5% (both conditions). Example: metric=0.65, new=0.659 → 0.009 abs, 1.4% rel → PLATEAU Example: metric=0.65, new=0.670 → 0.020 abs, 3.1% rel → NOT plateau

• PLATEAU → STOP. "Ceiling at [metric]. Pivot to: [2 alternatives from different algorithm families]."
• NOT plateau → continue, document delta

HYPOTHESIS QUALITY

• Falsifiable? What result disproves it?
• Baseline exists? (If NO → block tuning. Run baseline first.)
• Success threshold defined? ("any improvement" is not a threshold)

OBSERVABILITY SLA

• ETA > 30 min? Set CronCreate check at ETA / 2.
• Hung condition: CPU < 5% for 15 min OR no log output for 30 min
• Artifact save: checkpoint, metrics JSON, sample predictions, manifest entry
• Kill-switch defined?

MACRO PRIORITY

• Is this module a bottleneck? (Show profiling data or reasoning.)
• Will improvement here move the overall system metric?
• What else could run in parallel?

Pre-flight template (required before any experiment > 30 min):

Hypothesis: [specific falsifiable claim]
Baseline:   [prior result, or "NONE — run baseline first"]
Success:    [metric >= X, or cost <= Y]
Pilot:      [5% subset, ~5 min — validates I/O before full run]
SLA:        [check interval, hung condition, artifact path]

Crutch vs. Pattern Rubric

Crutch indicators:

• Hardcoded value without named constant or config
• "temporary" comment older than 1 sprint
• Logic duplicated in 2+ places without abstraction
• TODO/FIXME with no owner or date
• Architecture built for current single user, not contract

Pattern indicators (safe):

• Reused across 3+ contexts with same interface
• Decision documented with explicit rationale
• Testable contract exists
• Another team could use it without asking questions

Deep Mode (trigger: [CRITIQUE] in user prompt)

Launch 8 subagents via Agent tool in parallel — one per role. Each receives: context, the proposed decision, role system prompt from resources/role-prompts.md.

Synthesize via D3:

1. Debate: all 8 findings, unfiltered
2. Deliberate: classify each as CRITICAL / HIGH / LOW
3. Decide: recommendation + explicit acknowledgment of each CRITICAL

Patterns from Project History (Grounded in Real Failures)

From defectoscopy (ML pipeline):

• K=3000, 6h, no timer, no pilot, no baseline → [ML] + [Perf] + [DA] would block
• Hexagonal arch scaffolded before any real code → [DA] + [Crutch] + [Perf] would block
• Clustering optimized when clustering was not the bottleneck → [ML] + [Perf] + [DA]

From techcon_hub (infrastructure):

• GitHub PAT tokens in chat (3 incidents) → [Security] CRITICAL
• terraform apply -auto-approve destroyed controller node → [Security] + [DA]
• Secrets in CI only — developers locked out of local dev → [Security] + [Strategy]

Resource Index

Load only when explicitly needed (not auto-injected):

• resources/role-prompts.md — Full SPP prompts for all 8 roles (Deep Mode)
• resources/ml-audit-protocol.md — Plateau detection, pivot logic, experiment manifest
• resources/failure-patterns.md — Annotated failure catalog (defectoscopy + hub)