Critic Loop

critic-loop

LLM-as-judge quality gate. Operationalizes the "2nd agent grades/self-corrects before you accept" lesson (claude-code-mastery, video 8). SkynetLabs only had the manual /review; this is the automated gate that runs before a deliverable ships.

Core principle

The builder never grades its own work. A model that wrote an artifact is biased toward approving it. Spawn a SEPARATE critic agent with a clean context, give it the artifact + rubric + adversarial framing, and let IT decide. Loop until PASS.

build → spawn critic (FAIL-biased) → PASS? ship : apply fixes → re-critique
                          ↑________________________________________|
                                 max N rounds (default 3)

When to use

USE before:

• A client deliverable is sent (website, copy, audit, proposal, automation)
• A deploy / publish / git push to production
• Anything with secrets, credentials, or money flow

SKIP when:

• Throwaway scratch work, internal notes, exploratory spikes
• Already passed critic this session AND artifact unchanged
• Time-critical hotfix where the fix is trivial + reversible (still log it)

Inputs required

1. Artifact — path(s), URL, pasted text, or git diff (git diff main)
2. Type — one of: website | copy | automation | proposal | generic
3. Rubric — auto-selected from type (below), or user-supplied for generic
4. Mode — single (1 critic, default) | multi (3 lenses, majority vote)
5. Max rounds — default 3
6. Pass bar — default: ZERO blockers + score ≥ 85/100

If type unclear → ASK before spawning. Wrong rubric = useless verdict.

The recipe

1. Classify + load rubric

Detect artifact type. Load the matching rubric from rubrics/<type>.md (or the inline blocks below). For generic, demand a rubric from the user — never invent acceptance criteria silently.

2. Snapshot the artifact

• Code/diff: git diff <base> > .critic/round-N.diff
• Site: capture URL + run /browse or /qa to gather live evidence (CWV, links)
• Copy: save the exact text to .critic/round-N.txt
• Proposal: save text + the original JD it answers

Critic grades the SNAPSHOT, not a moving target.

3. Spawn critic(s) — ONE message

single mode: 1 Agent call with the critic prompt. multi mode: 3 Agent calls IN ONE MESSAGE (true parallel), each a distinct lens:

• Lens A — Correctness/Function: does it work, is it true, no broken parts
• Lens B — Standards/Craft: meets the domain rubric, polish, brand
• Lens C — Adversary/Risk: what breaks in prod, secrets, legal, edge cases

Each critic gets a CLEAN context (subagent_type: general-purpose) and the adversarial prompt below. Critics do NOT see each other's verdicts.

4. Collect verdicts

• single: that verdict is final.
• multi: majority vote. 2/3 PASS → PASS. Tie/any blocker → FAIL (default to caution). ANY critic raising a SECURITY blocker → FAIL regardless of vote.

5. Loop or ship

• PASS → emit final scorecard + ship verdict. Done.
• FAIL → take the prioritized fix list, apply fixes (builder context), bump round, go to step 2. Stop at max rounds.
• Hit max rounds still failing → STOP. Emit scorecard + remaining blockers + NO-SHIP verdict. Escalate to human. Do NOT ship a failing artifact.

6. Hard security gate

If the artifact touches secrets / credentials / deploy / payment / PII, run /security-review (or a dedicated Lens C security pass) as a NON-NEGOTIABLE gate BEFORE the ship verdict, even if all critics passed. Exposed secret = auto NO-SHIP.

Adversarial critic prompt (the heart of it)

Each spawned critic gets THIS (vars filled):

You are an INDEPENDENT critic. You did NOT build this artifact. Your job is to
REFUTE it — find every fault, not to praise it. You are the last line before this
reaches a paying client. A miss costs the agency its reputation.

ARTIFACT TYPE: <type>
ARTIFACT: <path / url / inline text / diff>
LENS (multi-mode only): <A correctness | B craft | C adversary>

RUBRIC (grade against EACH line, cite evidence):
<rubric criteria>

RULES:
- Default to FAIL. Approve ONLY if you cannot find a real fault.
- Every claim of a fault MUST cite the exact line / element / sentence.
- Do NOT invent praise to soften. No "looks great overall."
- Severity each finding: BLOCKER (cannot ship) | MAJOR | MINOR | NIT.
- If you are UNCERTAIN whether something is correct → treat as a fault and FAIL.
- Check the artifact against the rubric ONLY. No scope creep.

OUTPUT (exactly this shape):
## Verdict: PASS | FAIL
## Score: <0-100>
## Blockers (must fix to ship)
1. [location] problem → required fix
## Major
...
## Minor / Nits
...
## Evidence checked
<what you actually inspected: ran links? viewed render? grepped secrets?>

ultrathink before grading. Be specific. Be harsh. Be fair.

Baked-in domain rubrics

Full versions in rubrics/. Summaries:

(a) website — rubrics/website.md

• Responsive: no horizontal scroll / broken layout at 375 / 768 / 1440px
• Zero broken links (internal + external) — critic must actually check
• SEO meta present: unique <title>, meta description, OG tags per page
• Schema.org JSON-LD present + valid for page type (LocalBusiness/Article/etc)
• Core Web Vitals: LCP < 2.5s, CLS < 0.1, no render-blocking obvious sins
• NO lorem ipsum, NO placeholder text, NO # dead hrefs, NO TODO comments
• All images have alt text + are not broken
• Favicon + 404 page exist
• Forms submit somewhere real (not action="")
• BLOCKER if: any lorem/placeholder, broken link, missing title/meta, layout break

(b) content / copy — rubrics/copy.md

• Run /humanizer check — no AI tells (em-dash overuse, rule-of-three, "in today's fast-paced", negative parallelisms, inflated symbolism)
• NO fabricated claims, fake stats, invented testimonials, or unverifiable numbers
• Brand voice matches (for the author: contrarian hook → reframe → arrow lines → vulnerability beat → CTA; 1 local authenticity anchor; 1 real client win)
• Reading level + length fit the channel
• CTA present and singular
• No spelling/grammar errors; no broken markdown/links
• BLOCKER if: fabricated claim, fails humanizer hard-fail, wrong brand for channel

(c) automation / n8n — rubrics/automation.md

• Error handling on every external call (retry / error branch / no silent fail)
• NO exposed secrets — keys in credentials store, not in node params / code / URLs
• Idempotent: re-running won't double-charge / double-send / duplicate records
• Webhook auth / signature verification where applicable
• Rate-limit + timeout handling on HTTP nodes
• Validated via n8n-mcp validate_workflow (no orphan nodes, valid expressions)
• Timezone correct (America/New_York for GHL, NOT America/Cancun — known trap)
• Logging / observability on failure path
• BLOCKER if: any exposed secret, no error handling on money/send action, non-idempotent

(d) Upwork / Fiverr proposal — rubrics/proposal.md

• Mirrors the JD: echoes the client's exact words / stack / outcome in first 2 lines
• Price anchored (a number or range stated with rationale, not "let's discuss")
• Real proof woven in (named relevant SkynetLabs win, not generic flattery)
• 2-3 sharp questions that prove expertise + qualify the client
• Presumptive CTA (assumes next step: "I can start Monday — want the Loom?")
• 120-180 words, no AI-template smell, no "I am writing to express my interest"
• Red flags in JD surfaced (scope creep, low budget, vague deliverable)
• BLOCKER if: doesn't mirror JD, no price anchor, no questions, generic/templated

Scorecard output (final)

Emit exactly this when the loop ends:

═══ CRITIC-LOOP SCORECARD ═══
Artifact: <name/path>      Type: <type>      Mode: <single|multi>
Rounds run: <n>/<max>      Pass bar: 0 blockers + ≥85

Round history:
  R1: FAIL (score 62) — 3 blockers, 5 major
  R2: FAIL (score 79) — 0 blockers, 2 major
  R3: PASS (score 91) — 0 blockers, 1 nit (accepted)

Multi-critic vote (if multi): A PASS · B PASS · C PASS  → 3/3 PASS
Security gate: PASS (no secrets) | N/A | FAILED

Remaining (non-blocking):
  - [MINOR] <thing> — optional polish

VERDICT: ✅ SHIP   |   ⛔ NO-SHIP (escalate)

Files

• rubrics/website.md — full client-site rubric (responsive/links/SEO/schema/CWV/placeholder)
• rubrics/copy.md — content rubric (humanizer + no-fake-claims + brand voice)
• rubrics/automation.md — n8n rubric (error handling/secrets/idempotency/tz)
• rubrics/proposal.md — Upwork/Fiverr rubric (mirror JD/price/questions/CTA)
• rubrics/generic.md — template: how to author a one-off rubric
• prompts/critic.md — full adversarial critic prompt (copy-fill)
• prompts/lenses.md — the 3 multi-critic lens definitions (A/B/C)
• scripts/snapshot.sh — capture diff/text/url evidence into .critic/round-N.*
• scripts/spawn-block.md — copy-paste Agent call block (1 or 3 critics)
• scripts/tally-votes.md — majority-vote + security-veto decision logic
• templates/scorecard.md — final scorecard template

Decision logic (multi-mode)

Default to caution: when the vote is ambiguous, FAIL.

Cost model

• single mode: ~1 critic agent per round × rounds. Cheap. Default for most work.
• multi mode: ~3 critic agents per round (parallel). Use for high-stakes / large deliverables (flagship site, big proposal, client-facing automation).
• Loop converges fast: most artifacts PASS by round 2-3. If round 3 still fails, the artifact has a structural problem — rebuild, don't keep patching.

Break-even: any billable deliverable. One caught lorem-ipsum or exposed key pays for a year of critic runs.

Integration with existing skills

• Use AFTER builder skills: skynet-site, flagship-build, social-stack, upwork-proposal, aeo-daily, n8n builds — critic-loop is the gate they exit through.
• Critic CAN call: /humanizer (copy), /qa + /browse (site), n8n-mcp validate_workflow (automation), /security-review (secrets gate).
• Complements /review (pre-landing PR) — /review is for code diffs; critic-loop is for finished deliverables of any type.
• Pairs with fanout-ship: fan out N builds → critic-loop each before integration.

Failure modes + fixes

Anti-patterns

• ❌ Builder grading its own artifact (bias = false PASS)
• ❌ Critic with a soft/balanced prompt (must default to FAIL)
• ❌ Vague rubric / no rubric (verdict is meaningless)
• ❌ Shipping after max rounds while still failing (escalate instead)
• ❌ Skipping the security gate because "critics passed"
• ❌ Spawning the 3 multi-critics in separate messages (loses parallelism)
• ❌ Letting the critic grade a moving target (snapshot first)