/critic — EBS Design/Doc Critical Review Skill
Purpose
Structurally prevent anchoring errors and missing authoritative evidence when adjudicating EBS project specs, DB, API, or design. A single agent iterating sequentially anchors on its own prior verdict — this is resolved by parallel 2-critic.
Activation Conditions
Invoke this skill first if any of the following apply:
- •Explicit requests such as "critic mode", "review critically", "alignment review"
- •WSOP LIVE alignment review requested
- •Pre-review before major design decisions
- •Verdicts on "missing/wrong" for docs, schemas, or APIs
5-Phase Workflow
Phase 1 — Mandatory Authority Checklist Pre-Read
Documents that must be Read first before any verdict (specified in the Explore agent's prompt):
[Authority order — higher always wins] 1. C:/claude/ebs/CLAUDE.md §"Project Design Principles" (especially Principle 1 WSOP LIVE alignment) 2. C:/claude/ebs/docs/2. Development/2.2 Backend/Back_Office/Overview.md §1.2 Adopt/Remove Matrix 3. C:/claude/ebs/docs/1. Product/Foundation.md §4.2 Overlay render elements 4. C:/claude/ebs/docs/2. Development/2.5 Shared/team-policy.json (governance_model + version) 5. C:/claude/ebs/docs/4. Operations/Multi_Session_Workflow.md (parallel operation policy) [Auxiliary — treat with suspicion] 6. ~/.claude/projects/C--claude-ebs/memory/ (downgrade if stale warning or age > 7 days; secondary verification required)
Prohibited: Emitting a verdict without Reading the 5 documents above. Verdicts citing memory only.
Phase 2 — Parallel 2-Critic Deployment
Concurrent execution (parallel tool calls in a single message):
Agent A — WSOP LIVE Alignment View
prompt: "Against Principle 1 (maximum WSOP LIVE alignment), for each target: - Do value/name/structure match the WSOP LIVE source? - If diverged, is justified divergence documented in EBS docs? - If no justification, verdict = alignment violation. Citations from wsoplive/docs/confluence-mirror/ are mandatory." subagent_type: Explore (thoroughness: very thorough)
Agent B — EBS Core Scope View
prompt: "Against EBS Core (3-input → overlay, real-time live only) and §1.2 matrix removed areas (Registration/Payout/KYC, etc.): - Is the target inside EBS scope or outside? - If outside, absent from EBS is correct even if present in WSOP LIVE. - Does the field/value actually enter the overlay render chain? Citations from Foundation.md §4.2 and Back_Office/Overview.md §1.2 are mandatory." subagent_type: Explore (thoroughness: very thorough)
Phase 3 — Cross-Adjudication + Mandatory Counter-Evidence
After Lead receives both agents' outputs:
3-1. Verdict table (three columns required per item):
| Verdict | Evidence | Authority | Counter-Evidence (deliberately sought) |
|---|---|---|---|
| e.g. Transaction addition required | §1.2 matrix #12–15 (finance removed) | doc:line | "one reason addition might be needed" |
- •Authority: doc citation (H) > memory citation (M) > inference (L)
- •If no counter-evidence is found, mark "insufficient evidence" and request user confirmation
- •Verdicts based solely on authority L are prohibited — must add doc-based evidence
3-2. Agent A vs Agent B conflict handling:
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Both agents agree | Adopt |
| Disagree (e.g., A "align" / B "out of scope") | Compare evidence strength, then escalate to user immediately — arbitrary synthesis prohibited |
Phase 4 — Self-Rebuttal Loop (mandatory at report end)
A "Weaknesses of this report" section is required at the end of every critic report:
- •Documents not Read (if any, immediate risk)
- •Memories this verdict depends on, and the memory's age
- •Strongest argument an opponent could use to attack this report
Reports missing this section are incomplete — do not emit.
Phase 5 — Memory Update
If the user corrected a verdict (pattern like v1–v4 in this session):
- •Append the failure pattern to
~/.claude/projects/C--claude-ebs/memory/feedback_critic_discipline.md - •If an existing memory was overturned, edit that memory file + update the MEMORY.md index
Output Format
# Critic Report ## Phase 1 Authority Documents Confirmed - [ ] CLAUDE.md §Principle 1 (cited lines) - [ ] Overview.md §1.2 matrix (cited lines) - [ ] Foundation.md §4.2 (cited lines) - [ ] team-policy.json (version) - [ ] Multi_Session_Workflow.md (cited lines) ## Phase 2 Agent Verdicts ### Agent A (WSOP LIVE alignment) ... ### Agent B (EBS Core scope) ... ## Phase 3 Cross-Adjudication | Item | Verdict | Evidence | Authority | Counter-Evidence | A/B Agreement | |------|---------|----------|:---------:|------------------|:-------------:| ... ## Phase 4 Weaknesses of This Report 1. Unread documents: ... 2. Memory dependency age: ... 3. Strongest attack: ... ## Final Recommendation Prioritized action matrix + explicit out-of-scope items
Prohibited
- •Emitting verdicts while skipping the Phase 1 authority checklist
- •Running only Agent A or only Agent B
- •Emitting verdicts without the counter-evidence column
- •Verdicts based solely on memory (no doc cross-check)
- •Omitting the Phase 4 self-rebuttal section
- •Lead arbitrarily synthesizing on Agent conflict (must escalate to user)
Meta
Why this skill exists: In the 2026-04-15 session, EBS DB/API critic was performed ad-hoc, leading to four re-adjudications v1→v2→v3→v4. Each time, a different authority document was missed (CLAUDE.md Principle 1, §1.2 matrix, team-policy v6, Multi_Session_Workflow). Four structural safeguards — checklist + parallel + counter-evidence + self-rebuttal — block the failure mode.
Reuse points: The pattern is portable to non-EBS projects, but the Phase 1 authority list must be rewritten per project.