# Criteria Interrogation

> Challenge the evaluation criteria themselves using Assumption-based Planning, Critical Systems Heuristics, and Boundary Critique to ensure the framework is sound.

- Skill: `yogsoth-ai/criteria-interrogation` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add yogsoth-ai/criteria-interrogation`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/yogsoth-ai/criteria-interrogation/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: yogsoth-ai (https://skillmd.com/u/yogsoth-ai)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/yogsoth-ai/criteria-interrogation

---


# Criteria Interrogation

**Purpose:** Question whether the evaluation framework used during convergence was itself valid — exposing hidden biases in criteria selection, weighting, and boundary definitions that may have predetermined the outcome.

**When to use:**
- When criteria were inherited rather than deliberately designed
- When different criteria would produce different winners
- When stakeholders disagree about what matters
- When the evaluation framework has not been challenged

## Budget

| Metric | Minimum |
|--------|---------|
| Criteria challenged | All criteria used in convergence |
| Alternative framings | >= 2 alternative criteria sets |
| Boundary questions | >= 5 (who benefits, who is excluded) |

## State Ledger

```yaml
criteria_under_review: []
challenges_raised: {}
alternative_framings: []
sensitivity_to_criteria_change: {}
verdict: null  # CRITERIA_SOUND | CRITERIA_BIASED | REWEIGHT
```

## Available Tactics

| Tactic | When to Deploy |
|--------|---------------|
| assumption-excavation | Default — treat criteria as assumptions to challenge |
| multi-perspective-attack | When criteria privilege certain stakeholders |

## Available SOPs

- assumption-extraction — surface assumptions embedded in criteria
- assumption-challenge — challenge each criterion's validity
- conclusion-sensitivity — test if outcome changes with different criteria
- perspective-assignment — assign stakeholder perspectives to criteria
- perspective-attack — attack criteria from each perspective

## Execution Guidance

1. List all criteria used in convergence with their weights
2. For each criterion, apply assumption-extraction (why this criterion?)
3. Challenge each criterion's inclusion, exclusion, and weight
4. Test conclusion sensitivity: would different weights change the winner?
5. If winner changes under reasonable alternative weighting, verdict is REWEIGHT

## Output Format

```yaml
strategy: criteria-interrogation
criteria_reviewed: <count>
challenges:
  - criterion: <name>
    challenge: <argument>
    severity: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
    alternative: <proposed change>
sensitivity_result: ROBUST | FRAGILE
verdict: CRITERIA_SOUND | CRITERIA_BIASED | REWEIGHT
recommended_changes: []
```

<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->

## Available Tactics

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

| Tactic | When to use |
| --- | --- |
| assumption-excavation | Systematic extraction, challenge, and sensitivity analysis of assumptions underlying a decision to identify load-bearing beliefs. |
| multi-perspective-attack | Assign distinct perspectives to attack a decision from multiple angles, then synthesize findings into a unified assessment. |

<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->