--- name: multi-persona-critique description: "Parallel critique of proposals via 5 philosophical personas with consensus synthesis." user-invocable: true argument-hint: "" allowed-tools: - Read - Bash - Glob - Grep - Agent context: fork routing: triggers: - "critique these ideas" - "multi-persona review" - "philosophical critique" - "devil's advocate on ideas" - "stress test proposals" - "evaluate from multiple perspectives" - "get different viewpoints" - "critique proposals" pairs_with: - roast - decision-helper complexity: Complex category: analysis --- # Multi-Persona Critique: Parallel Philosophical Review of Proposals ## Overview This skill takes a set of proposals — feature ideas, architectural decisions, design choices, strategy options — and sends ALL of them to 5 distinct intellectual personas for parallel, independent critique. Each persona brings a different philosophical lens. The skill then synthesizes all critiques into a consensus report showing where personas agree, where they disagree, and what the disagreements reveal. **This is NOT the roast skill.** Key differences: - `roast` critiques CODE with HackerNews personas and validates file:line claims - This skill critiques IDEAS/PROPOSALS with philosophical/methodological personas and evaluates logical coherence, practical viability, and human impact - `roast` is evidence-based (checking actual code); this is argument-based (evaluating reasoning) **Key constraints baked into the workflow:** - Every persona sees ALL proposals — no cherry-picking - Personas run in parallel with no awareness of each other — independence is the source of value - Ratings are mandatory: STRONG / PROMISING / WEAK / REJECT for every proposal from every persona - Rankings are mandatory: each persona orders proposals from strongest to weakest - Fairness mandate: genuine strengths must be acknowledged, genuine weaknesses explained with precision - Disagreements are preserved, not averaged away — the disagreements ARE the insight - The synthesis phase adds cross-cutting analysis, it does not edit persona outputs --- ## Reference Loading Table | Signal | Load These Files | Why | |---|---|---| | example-driven tasks, errors | `examples-and-errors.md` | Loads detailed guidance from `examples-and-errors.md`. | | tasks related to this reference | `personas.md` | Loads detailed guidance from `personas.md`. | | tasks related to this reference | `synthesis-template.md` | Loads detailed guidance from `synthesis-template.md`. | ## Instructions ### Phase 1: UNDERSTAND PROPOSALS **Goal**: Extract or generate clear, numbered proposals ready for critique. **Step 1: Determine input mode** | Input | Action | |-------|--------| | User provides proposals directly | Extract and number them | | User says "generate N ideas about X" | Research the domain, read relevant code/docs, then generate proposals | | Ambiguous input | Ask user to clarify before proceeding | **Step 2: Normalize proposals** Each proposal must be a clear, self-contained description (2-4 sentences) that any of the 5 personas can evaluate independently. If user-provided proposals are vague, expand them to include: - What the proposal does - Why it matters (the problem it solves) - How it differs from the status quo If generating proposals, research the domain first: - Use Glob and Grep to understand existing code, docs, and architecture - Use Read to examine key files relevant to the domain - Generate proposals grounded in actual context, not hypotheticals **Step 3: Number and present** Present the numbered proposal list back to the user before proceeding. Format: ``` Proposals for critique: 1. [Title] — [2-4 sentence description] 2. [Title] — [2-4 sentence description] ... ``` **Gate**: Numbered list of proposals ready. Each proposal is self-contained with 2-4 sentences. Proceed only when gate passes. ### Phase 2: BRIEF PERSONAS **Goal**: Construct prompts for each of the 5 personas. Load the full persona specifications from `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/personas.md`. For each persona, construct a prompt containing an identity block, the numbered proposals, rating and ranking requirements, a fairness mandate, and the structured output format — see `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md` (Phase 2: Persona Prompt Construction) for the complete construction recipe. **Gate**: 5 persona prompts constructed, each containing all proposals and the full persona specification. Proceed only when gate passes. ### Phase 3: DISPATCH (Parallel) **Goal**: Launch all 5 personas in parallel and collect independent critiques. Launch 5 agents using the Agent tool, one per persona. Each agent runs independently with no awareness of other personas. **The 5 parallel agents:** 1. **The Logician** (Bertrand Russell) Focus: Logical coherence, hidden assumptions, falsifiability, necessity vs novelty 2. **The Pragmatic Builder** (20-year staff engineer) Focus: Build cost vs value, maintenance burden, simpler alternatives, user need 3. **The Systems Purist** (Edsger Dijkstra) Focus: Accidental complexity, separation of concerns, elegance, failure modes 4. **The End User Advocate** (8-hours-a-day tool user) Focus: Daily impact, friction, delight, whether the problem is already solved 5. **The Skeptical Philosopher** (Illich/Postman/Franklin) Focus: Human agency, dependency risk, genuine vs manufactured problems, unintended consequences **Each agent must produce:** - A rating (STRONG / PROMISING / WEAK / REJECT) for every proposal with 2-3 sentence justification - A ranked list of all proposals from strongest to weakest - Any cross-cutting observations that apply to multiple proposals **CRITICAL**: Wait for ALL 5 agents to complete before proceeding to Phase 4. Do not begin synthesis on partial results. Every persona must contribute before consensus can be determined. **Gate**: All 5 persona reports received. Each report contains ratings for all proposals and a ranked list. Proceed only when gate passes. ### Phase 4: SYNTHESIZE **Goal**: Build a consensus matrix and identify agreement, disagreement, and cross-cutting patterns. **Step 1: Build the consensus matrix** Create a matrix: proposals (rows) x personas (columns) x ratings. See the consensus matrix template in `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md`. **Step 2: Classify consensus patterns** For each proposal, classify: - **CONSENSUS** (4+ personas agree within one tier): Strong signal - **CONTESTED** (2-3 split): The disagreement itself is informative - **OUTLIER** (1 disagrees with 4): Worth understanding why one persona sees differently **Step 3: Extract disagreement specifics** For CONTESTED and OUTLIER proposals, extract the specific disagreement: - What does each side see that the other does not? - Is the disagreement about values (what matters) or facts (what is true)? - Does one persona have domain-relevant insight the others lack? **Step 4: Calculate weighted consensus score** Assign numeric values: STRONG=3, PROMISING=2, WEAK=1, REJECT=0 For each proposal: sum all 5 ratings, giving a score from 0-15. **Step 5: Rank proposals by consensus score** Sort proposals from highest to lowest weighted score. Note ties and what distinguishes tied proposals. **Gate**: Consensus matrix complete with classifications, disagreement analysis, and ranked scores. Proceed only when gate passes. ### Phase 5: PRESENT **Goal**: Deliver the synthesis report using the template from `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/synthesis-template.md`. Load the synthesis template and populate all 7 sections (Consensus Matrix; Features to Build; Worth Investigating; Interesting Disagreements; Shelve; Cross-Cutting Insights; Deepest Insight). See `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md` (Phase 5: Synthesis Report Sections) for each section's purpose and score-band criteria. **Gate**: Report complete with all sections populated. Critique done. --- ## Examples, Error Handling, and Detection See `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md` for: - **Examples**: critique provided proposals, generate+critique ideas, evaluate architectural options - **Failure modes**: averaging disagreement, post-hoc rationalization, consensus-as-truth, skipping justification, resolving contested items, sequential execution - **Error Handling**: bare ratings, skipped proposals, uniform agreement, fewer than 2 proposals --- ## References ### Reference Files - `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/personas.md`: Full persona specifications, identity, evaluation criteria, prompt templates - `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/synthesis-template.md`: Consensus matrix format and synthesis report structure - `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/examples-and-errors.md`: Worked examples, anti-patterns, error handling ### Related Skills - `roast`: Code critique with evidence-based validation (complementary — roast critiques code, this critiques ideas) - `decision-helper`: Weighted decision scoring for architectural choices (narrower — single-dimension scoring vs multi-persona critique)