synaptiai/agent-capability-standard/critique
Claude Code and agent skill by synaptiai/agent-capability-standard
- community
Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.
Find failure modes, edge cases, ambiguities, and exploit paths in plans, code, or designs. Use when reviewing proposals, auditing security, stress-testing logic, or validating assumptions.
Install
npx vskill@latest install synaptiai/agent-capability-standard/critiqueSKILL.md
Intent
Systematically analyze a target (plan, code, design, document) to identify failure modes, edge cases, ambiguities, and potential exploits. Produce actionable findings with severity ratings and mitigation recommendations.
Success criteria:
- All major failure modes identified
- Edge cases documented with reproduction scenarios
- Ambiguities flagged with clarification requests
- Security/exploit risks rated appropriately
- Each issue has an actionable suggestion
Compatible schemas:
schemas/output_schema.yaml
Inputs
| Parameter | Required | Type | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
target | Yes | any | Plan, code, design, or document to critique | |
criteria | No | array | Evaluation criteria | |
severity_threshold | No | string | Minimum severity to report: low, medium, high, critical | |
context | No | any | Additional context about the target |
Inputs not listed here are outside the capability's contract: a workflow step that binds them gets W604 (STANDARD v1.1 §5.5).
Procedure
1) Understand the target: Analyze what is being critiqued
- Read and comprehend the target fully
- Identify the purpose and intended behavior
- Note stated assumptions and constraints
- Understand success criteria
2) Identify failure modes: Find ways the target could fail
- What happens under unexpected inputs?
- What if dependencies are unavailable?
- What if timing assumptions are wrong?
- What if scale exceeds expectations?
3) Enumerate edge cases: Find boundary conditions
- Empty inputs, null values, missing fields
- Maximum/minimum values
- Concurrent access scenarios
- Unicode, special characters, injection patterns
4) Detect ambiguities: Find unclear specifications
- Terms with multiple interpretations
- Missing definitions
- Implicit assumptions
- Contradictory requirements
5) Assess exploit paths: Identify security vulnerabilities
- Input validation gaps
- Authentication/authorization bypasses
- Data exposure risks
- Privilege escalation opportunities
6) Rate severity: Classify each issue (recorded per issue and in the severity map)
- CRITICAL: System compromise or data loss
- HIGH: Significant functionality or security impact
- MEDIUM: Moderate impact, workarounds exist
- LOW: Minor issues, cosmetic or edge-case
- Report in
issuesonly those at or aboveseverity_threshold
7) Recommend mitigations: Provide actionable fixes as suggestions
- Specific changes to address each finding
- Priority ordering for fixes
- Estimated effort for each mitigation
Output Contract
Return a structured object:
Field Definitions
| Field | Type | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
issues | array | Weaknesses found at or above severity_threshold (empty when none; workflows gate on ${<step>.issues} == []) | |
severity | object | Issue severities, keyed by issue id | |
risk_summary | object | Overall risk assessment | |
suggestions | array<object> | Prioritized improvement suggestions, each referencing an issue | |
patterns_identified | array | Recurring issues with systemic fixes | |
confidence | number | 0.0-1.0 based on analysis completeness | |
evidence_anchors | array | References to target locations | |
assumptions | array | Assumptions made during analysis |
Examples
Example 1: Plan Critique
Input:
Output:
Evidence pattern: Each issue references specific plan location; suggestions are actionable.
Example 2: Code Critique (Security Focus)
Input:
Review adversarially: probe the code as an attacker would.
Output:
Verification
- [ ] All criteria were examined
- [ ] Severity ratings are justified
- [ ] Each issue has a suggestion
- [ ] Critical issues are highlighted
- [ ] Patterns are identified for systemic fixes
Verification tools: Read (for code/doc analysis), Grep (for pattern search)
Safety Constraints
mutation: falserequires_checkpoint: falserequires_approval: falserisk: low
Capability-specific rules:
- Never test exploits on production systems
- Report all critical findings immediately
- Do not disclose security findings to unauthorized parties
- If finding reveals active exploit, escalate immediately
- Be thorough but avoid false positives
Composition Patterns
This is the start of the file. Read the full SKILL.md on GitHub.
Security
- Security scanPassed, 100 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
- Model reviewNot runA model review is scheduled for the next rescan.
Quality evaluation
- Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.
Source
- SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/critique/SKILL.md
Popularity
- 7-day trend score
- 0
Not refreshed yet.
Works with
Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- GitHub Copilot
- Windsurf
- Codex
- Gemini CLI
- Cline
- Amp
- Roo Code
- Goose
- Continue
- Kilo Code
- Junie
- Trae
- OpenHands
- Qwen Code
- AI Agent
- Tabnine Chat
- Sourcegraph Cody
- Amazon Q
- Firebase Genkit
- Sweep
- Devin
- Phind
- Mentat
- Claude Desktop
- Aider
- GPT Pilot
- Plandex
- bolt.new
- v0
- Replit Agent
- Anse
- TypingMind
- BetterChatGPT
- LibreChat
- Warp AI
- Pieces
- Fig AI
Embed badge
[](https://verified-skill.com/skills/synaptiai/agent-capability-standard/critique)