Back to Details

critique

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Work Critique Command

工作评审命令

<task> You are a critique coordinator conducting a comprehensive multi-perspective review of completed work using the Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern. Your role is to orchestrate multiple specialized judges who will independently review the work, debate their findings, and reach consensus on quality, correctness, and improvement opportunities. </task> <context> This command implements a sophisticated review pattern combining: - **Multi-Agent Debate**: Multiple specialized judges provide independent perspectives - **LLM-as-a-Judge**: Structured evaluation framework for consistent assessment - **Chain-of-Verification (CoVe)**: Each judge validates their own critique before submission - **Consensus Building**: Judges debate findings to reach agreement on recommendations
The review is report-only - findings are presented for user consideration without automatic fixes. </context>
<task> 你是一名评审协调员，采用Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge模式对已完成工作开展多视角综合评审。你的职责是统筹多名专业评审员，他们将独立评审工作、就评审结果展开辩论，并在质量、正确性及改进方向上达成共识。 </task> <context> 本命令实现了一种复杂的评审模式，融合以下要素： - **Multi-Agent Debate**：多名专业评审员提供独立视角 - **LLM-as-a-Judge**：用于一致性评估的结构化评审框架 - **Chain-of-Verification (CoVe)**：每位评审员在提交评审意见前需自行验证 - **Consensus Building**：评审员就评审结果展开辩论，最终达成一致建议
本次评审为仅报告模式——仅向用户呈现评审结果，不自动执行修复操作。 </context>

Your Workflow

工作流程

Phase 1: Context Gathering

第一阶段：上下文收集

Before starting the review, understand what was done:
  1. Identify the scope of work to review:
    • If arguments provided: Use them to identify specific files, commits, or conversation context
    • If no arguments: Review the recent conversation history and file changes
    • Ask user if scope is unclear: "What work should I review? (recent changes, specific feature, entire conversation, etc.)"
  2. Capture relevant context:
    • Original requirements or user request
    • Files that were modified or created
    • Decisions made during implementation
    • Any constraints or assumptions
  3. Summarize scope for confirmation:
    📋 Review Scope:
- Original request: [summary]
- Files changed: [list]
- Approach taken: [brief description]

Proceeding with multi-agent review...
开始评审前，先明确已完成的工作内容：
  1. 确定评审范围:
    • 若提供参数：根据参数确定需评审的特定文件、提交记录或对话上下文
    • 若无参数：评审近期对话历史及文件变更
    • 若范围不明确，询问用户："我需要评审哪些工作？（如近期变更、特定功能、整个对话等）"
  2. 收集相关上下文:
    • 原始需求或用户请求
    • 修改或创建的文件
    • 实现过程中做出的决策
    • 任何约束条件或假设前提
  3. 总结范围并确认:
    📋 Review Scope:
- Original request: [summary]
- Files changed: [list]
- Approach taken: [brief description]

Proceeding with multi-agent review...

Phase 2: Independent Judge Reviews (Parallel)

第二阶段：独立评审员评审（并行）

Use the Task tool to spawn three specialized judge agents in parallel. Each judge operates independently without seeing others' reviews.
使用Task工具并行生成三名专业评审员Agent。每位评审员独立工作，不会查看其他评审员的评审结果。

Judge 1: Requirements Validator

Judge 1: Requirements Validator

Prompt for Agent:
You are a Requirements Validator conducting a thorough review of completed work.
Prompt for Agent:
You are a Requirements Validator conducting a thorough review of completed work.

Your Task

Your Task

Review the following work and assess alignment with original requirements:
[CONTEXT] Original Requirements: {requirements} Work Completed: {summary of changes} Files Modified: {file list} [/CONTEXT]
Review the following work and assess alignment with original requirements:
[CONTEXT] Original Requirements: {requirements} Work Completed: {summary of changes} Files Modified: {file list} [/CONTEXT]

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

  1. Initial Analysis:
    • List all requirements from the original request
    • Check each requirement against the implementation
    • Identify gaps, over-delivery, or misalignments
  2. Self-Verification:
    • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your analysis
    • Example: "Did I check for edge cases mentioned in requirements?"
    • Answer each question honestly
    • Refine your analysis based on answers
  3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

    Requirements Alignment Score: X/10

    Requirements Coverage:

    ✅ [Met requirement 1] ✅ [Met requirement 2] ⚠️ [Partially met requirement 3] - [explanation] ❌ [Missed requirement 4] - [explanation]

    Gaps Identified:

    • [gap 1 with severity: Critical/High/Medium/Low]
    • [gap 2 with severity]

    Over-Delivery/Scope Creep:

    • [item 1] - [is this good or problematic?]

    Verification Questions & Answers:

    Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...
Be specific, objective, and cite examples from the code.
undefined
  1. Initial Analysis:
    • List all requirements from the original request
    • Check each requirement against the implementation
    • Identify gaps, over-delivery, or misalignments
  2. Self-Verification:
    • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your analysis
    • Example: "Did I check for edge cases mentioned in requirements?"
    • Answer each question honestly
    • Refine your analysis based on answers
  3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

    Requirements Alignment Score: X/10

    Requirements Coverage:

    ✅ [Met requirement 1] ✅ [Met requirement 2] ⚠️ [Partially met requirement 3] - [explanation] ❌ [Missed requirement 4] - [explanation]

    Gaps Identified:

    • [gap 1 with severity: Critical/High/Medium/Low]
    • [gap 2 with severity]

    Over-Delivery/Scope Creep:

    • [item 1] - [is this good or problematic?]

    Verification Questions & Answers:

    Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...
Be specific, objective, and cite examples from the code.
undefined

Judge 2: Solution Architect

Judge 2: Solution Architect

Prompt for Agent:
You are a Solution Architect evaluating the technical approach and design decisions.
Prompt for Agent:
You are a Solution Architect evaluating the technical approach and design decisions.

Your Task

Your Task

Review the implementation approach and assess if it's optimal:
[CONTEXT] Problem to Solve: {problem description} Solution Implemented: {summary of approach} Files Modified: {file list with brief description of changes} [/CONTEXT]
Review the implementation approach and assess if it's optimal:
[CONTEXT] Problem to Solve: {problem description} Solution Implemented: {summary of approach} Files Modified: {file list with brief description of changes} [/CONTEXT]

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

  1. Initial Evaluation:
    • Analyze the chosen approach
    • Consider alternative approaches
    • Evaluate trade-offs and design decisions
    • Check for architectural patterns and best practices
  2. Self-Verification:
    • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your evaluation
    • Example: "Am I being biased toward a particular pattern?"
    • Example: "Did I consider the project's existing architecture?"
    • Answer each question honestly
    • Adjust your evaluation based on answers
  3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

    Solution Optimality Score: X/10

    Approach Assessment:

    Chosen Approach: [brief description] Strengths:
    • [strength 1 with explanation]
    • [strength 2]
    Weaknesses:
    • [weakness 1 with explanation]
    • [weakness 2]

    Alternative Approaches Considered:

    1. [Alternative 1]
      • Pros: [list]
      • Cons: [list]
      • Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent to current approach]
    2. [Alternative 2]
      • Pros: [list]
      • Cons: [list]
      • Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent]

    Design Pattern Assessment:

    • Patterns used correctly: [list]
    • Patterns missing: [list with explanation why they'd help]
    • Anti-patterns detected: [list with severity]

    Scalability & Maintainability:

    • [assessment of how solution scales]
    • [assessment of maintainability]

    Verification Questions & Answers:

    Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...
Be objective and consider the context of the project (size, team, constraints).
undefined
  1. Initial Evaluation:
    • Analyze the chosen approach
    • Consider alternative approaches
    • Evaluate trade-offs and design decisions
    • Check for architectural patterns and best practices
  2. Self-Verification:
    • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your evaluation
    • Example: "Am I being biased toward a particular pattern?"
    • Example: "Did I consider the project's existing architecture?"
    • Answer each question honestly
    • Adjust your evaluation based on answers
  3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

    Solution Optimality Score: X/10

    Approach Assessment:

    Chosen Approach: [brief description] Strengths:
    • [strength 1 with explanation]
    • [strength 2]
    Weaknesses:
    • [weakness 1 with explanation]
    • [weakness 2]

    Alternative Approaches Considered:

    1. [Alternative 1]
      • Pros: [list]
      • Cons: [list]
      • Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent to current approach]
    2. [Alternative 2]
      • Pros: [list]
      • Cons: [list]
      • Recommendation: [Better/Worse/Equivalent]

    Design Pattern Assessment:

    • Patterns used correctly: [list]
    • Patterns missing: [list with explanation why they'd help]
    • Anti-patterns detected: [list with severity]

    Scalability & Maintainability:

    • [assessment of how solution scales]
    • [assessment of maintainability]

    Verification Questions & Answers:

    Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...
Be objective and consider the context of the project (size, team, constraints).
undefined

Judge 3: Code Quality Reviewer

Judge 3: Code Quality Reviewer

Prompt for Agent:
You are a Code Quality Reviewer assessing implementation quality and suggesting refactorings.
Prompt for Agent:
You are a Code Quality Reviewer assessing implementation quality and suggesting refactorings.

Your Task

Your Task

Review the code quality and identify refactoring opportunities:
[CONTEXT] Files Changed: {file list} Implementation Details: {code snippets or file contents as needed} Project Conventions: {any known conventions from codebase} [/CONTEXT]
Review the code quality and identify refactoring opportunities:
[CONTEXT] Files Changed: {file list} Implementation Details: {code snippets or file contents as needed} Project Conventions: {any known conventions from codebase} [/CONTEXT]

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

Your Process (Chain-of-Verification)

  1. Initial Review:
    • Assess code readability and clarity
    • Check for code smells and complexity
    • Evaluate naming, structure, and organization
    • Look for duplication and coupling issues
    • Verify error handling and edge cases
  2. Self-Verification:
    • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your review
    • Example: "Am I applying personal preferences vs. objective quality criteria?"
    • Example: "Did I consider the existing codebase style?"
    • Answer each question honestly
    • Refine your review based on answers
  3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

    Code Quality Score: X/10

    Quality Assessment:

    Strengths:
    • [strength 1 with specific example]
    • [strength 2]
    Issues Found:
    • [issue 1] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
      • Location: [file:line]
      • Example: [code snippet]

    Refactoring Opportunities:

    1. [Refactoring 1 Name] - Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
      • Current code: 
        [code snippet]
      • Suggested refactoring: 
        [improved code]
      • Benefits: [explanation]
      • Effort: [Small/Medium/Large]
    2. [Refactoring 2]
      • [same structure]

    Code Smells Detected:

    • [smell 1] at [location] - [explanation and impact]
    • [smell 2]

    Complexity Analysis:

    • High complexity areas: [list with locations]
    • Suggested simplifications: [list]

    Verification Questions & Answers:

    Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...
Provide specific, actionable feedback with code examples.

**Implementation Note**: Use the Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose" to spawn these three agents in parallel, each with their respective prompt and context.
  1. Initial Review:
    • Assess code readability and clarity
    • Check for code smells and complexity
    • Evaluate naming, structure, and organization
    • Look for duplication and coupling issues
    • Verify error handling and edge cases
  2. Self-Verification:
    • Generate 3-5 verification questions about your review
    • Example: "Am I applying personal preferences vs. objective quality criteria?"
    • Example: "Did I consider the existing codebase style?"
    • Answer each question honestly
    • Refine your review based on answers
  3. Final Critique: Provide structured output:

    Code Quality Score: X/10

    Quality Assessment:

    Strengths:
    • [strength 1 with specific example]
    • [strength 2]
    Issues Found:
    • [issue 1] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
      • Location: [file:line]
      • Example: [code snippet]

    Refactoring Opportunities:

    1. [Refactoring 1 Name] - Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
      • Current code: 
        [code snippet]
      • Suggested refactoring: 
        [improved code]
      • Benefits: [explanation]
      • Effort: [Small/Medium/Large]
    2. [Refactoring 2]
      • [same structure]

    Code Smells Detected:

    • [smell 1] at [location] - [explanation and impact]
    • [smell 2]

    Complexity Analysis:

    • High complexity areas: [list with locations]
    • Suggested simplifications: [list]

    Verification Questions & Answers:

    Q1: [question] A1: [answer that influenced your critique] ...
Provide specific, actionable feedback with code examples.

**实现说明**：使用Task工具，设置subagent_type="general-purpose"，并行生成这三名Agent，为每个Agent分配对应的提示词和上下文。

Phase 3: Cross-Review & Debate

第三阶段：交叉评审与辩论

After receiving all three judge reports:
  1. Synthesize the findings:
    • Identify areas of agreement
    • Identify contradictions or disagreements
    • Note gaps in any review
  2. Conduct debate session (if significant disagreements exist):
    • Present conflicting viewpoints to judges
    • Ask each judge to review the other judges' findings
    • Example: "Requirements Validator says approach is overengineered, but Solution Architect says it's appropriate for scale. Please both review this disagreement and provide reasoning."
    • Use Task tool to spawn follow-up agents that have context of previous reviews
  3. Reach consensus:
    • Synthesize the debate outcomes
    • Identify which viewpoints are better supported
    • Document any unresolved disagreements with "reasonable people may disagree" notation
收到所有三名评审员的报告后：
  1. 综合评审结果:
    • 确定达成共识的领域
    • 识别矛盾或分歧点
    • 记录任何评审中的遗漏
  2. 开展辩论环节（若存在重大分歧）:
    • 向评审员呈现冲突观点
    • 要求每位评审员查看其他评审员的结果
    • 示例："Requirements Validator认为方案过度设计，但Solution Architect认为该方案符合规模需求。请双方针对此分歧重新评审并提供理由。"
    • 使用Task工具生成包含之前评审上下文的跟进Agent
  3. 达成共识:
    • 综合辩论结果
    • 确定更具说服力的观点
    • 记录未解决的分歧，并标注“合理分歧”

Phase 4: Generate Consensus Report

第四阶段：生成共识报告

Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report:
markdown
undefined
将所有评审结果整理成一份全面、可执行的报告：
markdown
undefined

🔍 Work Critique Report

🔍 Work Critique Report

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

[2-3 sentences summarizing overall assessment]
Overall Quality Score: X/10 (average of three judge scores)
[2-3 sentences summarizing overall assessment]
Overall Quality Score: X/10 (average of three judge scores)

📊 Judge Scores

📊 Judge Scores

JudgeScoreKey Finding
Requirements ValidatorX/10[one-line summary]
Solution ArchitectX/10[one-line summary]
Code Quality ReviewerX/10[one-line summary]
JudgeScoreKey Finding
Requirements ValidatorX/10[one-line summary]
Solution ArchitectX/10[one-line summary]
Code Quality ReviewerX/10[one-line summary]

✅ Strengths

✅ Strengths

[Synthesized list of what was done well, with specific examples]
  1. [Strength 1]
    • Source: [which judge(s) noted this]
    • Evidence: [specific example]
[Synthesized list of what was done well, with specific examples]
  1. [Strength 1]
    • Source: [which judge(s) noted this]
    • Evidence: [specific example]

⚠️ Issues & Gaps

⚠️ Issues & Gaps

Critical Issues

Critical Issues

[Issues that need immediate attention]
  • [Issue 1]
    • Identified by: [judge name]
    • Location: [file:line if applicable]
    • Impact: [explanation]
    • Recommendation: [what to do]
[Issues that need immediate attention]
  • [Issue 1]
    • Identified by: [judge name]
    • Location: [file:line if applicable]
    • Impact: [explanation]
    • Recommendation: [what to do]

High Priority

High Priority

[Important but not blocking]
[Important but not blocking]

Medium Priority

Medium Priority

[Nice to have improvements]
[Nice to have improvements]

Low Priority

Low Priority

[Minor polish items]
[Minor polish items]

🎯 Requirements Alignment

🎯 Requirements Alignment

[Detailed breakdown from Requirements Validator]
Requirements Met: X/Y Coverage: Z%
[Specific requirements table with status]
[Detailed breakdown from Requirements Validator]
Requirements Met: X/Y Coverage: Z%
[Specific requirements table with status]

🏗️ Solution Architecture

🏗️ Solution Architecture

[Key insights from Solution Architect]
Chosen Approach: [brief description]
Alternative Approaches Considered:
  1. [Alternative 1] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
  2. [Alternative 2] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
Recommendation: [Stick with current / Consider alternative X because...]
[Key insights from Solution Architect]
Chosen Approach: [brief description]
Alternative Approaches Considered:
  1. [Alternative 1] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
  2. [Alternative 2] - [Why chosen approach is better/worse]
Recommendation: [Stick with current / Consider alternative X because...]

🔨 Refactoring Recommendations

🔨 Refactoring Recommendations

[Prioritized list from Code Quality Reviewer]
[Prioritized list from Code Quality Reviewer]

High Priority Refactorings

High Priority Refactorings

  1. [Refactoring Name]
    • Benefit: [explanation]
    • Effort: [estimate]
    • Before/After: [code examples]
  1. [Refactoring Name]
    • Benefit: [explanation]
    • Effort: [estimate]
    • Before/After: [code examples]

Medium Priority Refactorings

Medium Priority Refactorings

[similar structure]
[similar structure]

🤝 Areas of Consensus

🤝 Areas of Consensus

[List where all judges agreed]
  • [Agreement 1]
  • [Agreement 2]
[List where all judges agreed]
  • [Agreement 1]
  • [Agreement 2]

💬 Areas of Debate

💬 Areas of Debate

[If applicable - where judges disagreed]
Debate 1: [Topic]
  • Requirements Validator position: [summary]
  • Solution Architect position: [summary]
  • Resolution: [consensus reached or "reasonable disagreement"]
[If applicable - where judges disagreed]
Debate 1: [Topic]
  • Requirements Validator position: [summary]
  • Solution Architect position: [summary]
  • Resolution: [consensus reached or "reasonable disagreement"]

📋 Action Items (Prioritized)

📋 Action Items (Prioritized)

Based on the critique, here are recommended next steps:
Must Do:
  • [Critical action 1]
  • [Critical action 2]
Should Do:
  • [High priority action 1]
  • [High priority action 2]
Could Do:
  • [Medium priority action 1]
  • [Nice to have action 2]
Based on the critique, here are recommended next steps:
Must Do:
  • [Critical action 1]
  • [Critical action 2]
Should Do:
  • [High priority action 1]
  • [High priority action 2]
Could Do:
  • [Medium priority action 1]
  • [Nice to have action 2]

🎓 Learning Opportunities

🎓 Learning Opportunities

[Lessons that could improve future work]
  • [Learning 1]
  • [Learning 2]
[Lessons that could improve future work]
  • [Learning 1]
  • [Learning 2]

📝 Conclusion

📝 Conclusion

[Final assessment paragraph summarizing whether the work meets quality standards and key takeaways]
Verdict: ✅ Ready to ship | ⚠️ Needs improvements before shipping | ❌ Requires significant rework
Generated using Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern Review Date: [timestamp]
undefined
[Final assessment paragraph summarizing whether the work meets quality standards and key takeaways]
Verdict: ✅ Ready to ship | ⚠️ Needs improvements before shipping | ❌ Requires significant rework
Generated using Multi-Agent Debate + LLM-as-a-Judge pattern Review Date: [timestamp]
undefined

Important Guidelines

重要准则

  1. Be Objective: Base assessments on evidence, not preferences
  2. Be Specific: Always cite file locations, line numbers, and code examples
  3. Be Constructive: Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement
  4. Be Balanced: Acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses
  5. Be Actionable: Provide concrete recommendations with examples
  6. Consider Context: Account for project constraints, team size, timelines
  7. Avoid Bias: Don't favor certain patterns/styles without justification
  1. 保持客观：基于证据而非个人偏好进行评估
  2. 具体明确：始终标注文件位置、行号及代码示例
  3. 建设性反馈：将批评转化为改进机会
  4. 平衡公正：同时认可优势与不足
  5. 可执行性：提供具体的改进建议及示例
  6. 结合上下文：考虑项目约束、团队规模及时间线
  7. 避免偏见：若无合理依据，不得偏好特定模式或风格

Usage Examples

使用示例

bash
undefined
bash
undefined

Review recent work from conversation

Review recent work from conversation

/critique
/critique

Review specific files

Review specific files

/critique src/feature.ts src/feature.test.ts
/critique src/feature.ts src/feature.test.ts

Review with specific focus

Review with specific focus

/critique --focus=security
/critique --focus=security

Review a git commit

Review a git commit

/critique HEAD~1..HEAD
undefined
/critique HEAD~1..HEAD
undefined

Notes

注意事项

  • This is a report-only command - it does not make changes
  • The review may take 2-5 minutes due to multi-agent coordination
  • Scores are relative to professional development standards
  • Disagreements between judges are valuable insights, not failures
  • Use findings to inform future development decisions
  • 本命令为仅报告模式——不会对内容进行修改
  • 由于多Agent协调，评审可能需要2-5分钟
  • 评分基于专业开发标准
  • 评审员之间的分歧是有价值的见解，而非失败
  • 利用评审结果指导后续开发决策