"Houses should be cleaned frequently, otherwise they will be covered with dust; faces should be washed regularly, otherwise they will be dusty. The thinking of our comrades and the work of our Party will also get dusty, so they should be cleaned and washed as well." —— Mao Zedong, On Coalition Government (1945)

See original-texts.md for detailed original text references

• The task has just started, and there is no work result available for review
• The user is providing real-time guidance, and feedback has been incorporated immediately - no post-hoc criticism is needed
• Simple single-step tasks (e.g. "Help me check the signature of this function") - no process to review
• Already in the execution phase of emergency repair - complete the repair first, then conduct review after completion

• After completing a task, you need to review its quality
• Receive criticism or feedback from others
• Find that your work may have problems but are not sure
• The project has reached a phased node and requires a retrospective
• Similar errors occur repeatedly, and the root cause needs to be found
• Need to establish a regular review mechanism for the team/project

"We must expose previous mistakes without mercy"——Rectify the Party's Style of Work

• Did I achieve my work goals?
• What parts of the process were not done well enough?
• Were there any instances of laziness, perfunctoriness, or taking shortcuts?
• Are there any problems that I knew existed but chose to ignore?
• If I could start over, where would I make different choices?

Criticism must be "analyzed and criticized with a scientific attitude"——Rectify the Party's Style of Work

• Bad example: "I think it's not done well enough" (too general, no room for improvement)
• Good example: "I skipped the verification link in the third step, which caused X problem later" (specific, actionable)

• Point out specific behaviors or decisions, rather than general personality evaluations
• Analyze the causes of errors, rather than only describing phenomena
• Explain the impact of errors
• Propose specific improvement methods

investigation-first

• Cite specific facts and evidence
• Do not rely on rumors or speculation
• Mark parts you are not sure about as "doubtful"
• Allow the criticized party to provide supplementary information

"It is entirely for the purpose of saving people, not for killing them."——Rectify the Party's Style of Work

• For every problem pointed out, provide an improvement suggestion
• While acknowledging problems, affirm the well-done parts
• Focus on "how to do better next time", rather than "who is at fault this time"
• Attitude towards mistakes: Mistakes are learning opportunities, not shame

"Because we serve the people, if we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to be criticized and pointed out. No matter who it is, anyone can point them out to us. As long as you are right, we will correct them."——Serve the People

• Listen completely first, do not rush to defend yourself
• Judge whether the criticism is fact-based
• If the criticism is correct - accept and correct it immediately
• If the criticism is inaccurate - explain with facts and reasoning, rather than responding emotionally
• Thank the person who gave the criticism (even if the criticism makes you uncomfortable)

"Houses should be cleaned frequently"——On Coalition Government

• Conduct a self-examination after completing each phased work
• Conduct retrospectives regularly (not only when problems occur)
• Take the problems found in the last criticism as the focus of the next inspection
• Accumulate error records to find patterns and root causes

• Did I achieve the original goal?
• Did I skip any required steps during the process?
• Has my solution been verified through practice (

  practice-cognition

  )?
• Did I fully investigate the situation (

  investigation-first

  )?
• Did I collect opinions from relevant stakeholders (

  mass-line

  )?
• Did I grasp the main contradiction (

  contradiction-analysis

  )?
• Are there any problems that I know about but avoided?
• If I could start over, what would I do differently?

• Criticism targets people's personalities rather than specific behaviors
• Criticism has no constructive purpose, only to vent emotions
• Suppress dissenting opinions in the name of "criticism"

"As long as he does not hide his sickness for fear of treatment, does not stick to his mistakes to the point of being incurable"——Rectify the Party's Style of Work

• Rush to defend yourself as soon as you hear criticism
• Treat correct criticism as an "attack"
• Selectively accept criticism (only accept pleasant feedback)
• Accept on the surface but do not correct in practice

• Completed: ……
• Not completed: …… (Reason: ……)

• ……

• ……

**Filling Rules:**
- "Issue Description" must include specific step numbers or file names. Uninformative descriptions such as "not done well enough" are prohibited
- "Root Cause" must point to a methodological error (skipped investigation? no verification? distracted?)
- If the "Identified Issues" table is empty, it must be clearly stated that "No issues requiring correction were found in this work, the reason is..."

> 📌 **Follow-up Closed Loop**: After the report is generated, directly output the "Key Focus for Next Time" part to the user, and inform: "If you need to implement these improvements in the next task, please paste this report as context at the beginning of the conversation." - AI cannot remember across sessions, this is the only reliable follow-up mechanism.

• Contradiction Analysis: Use contradiction analysis to find the main problems in the work
• Practice Epistemology: Self-criticism is the "summarize experience" link in practice epistemology
• Investigation and Research: Criticism must be fact-based and requires the support of investigation and research
• Mass Line: Receiving criticism from the masses is an important part of the mass line