Output Critic

Output Critic Protocol

Evaluate the output by type, score each criterion, make an accept/reject decision, and suggest concrete improvements. Goal: prevent weak output from reaching the next step.

---

Workflow

1. Detect output type
2. Apply type-specific criteria
3. Score each criterion
4. Calculate overall score
5. Make accept / conditional / reject decision
6. Suggest improvements

---

Acceptance Threshold

| Overall Score | Decision | Action | |---|---|---| | 8-10 | ACCEPT | Proceed | | 6-7 | CONDITIONAL | Apply minor fixes, then proceed | | 0-5 | REJECT | Apply improvements, re-evaluate |

---

Type-Specific Criteria

Code

| Criterion | Weight | Question | |-----------|--------|----------| | Correctness | 30% | Produces expected output? Handles edge cases? | | Readability | 20% | Meaningful names? Clean indentation? | | Security | 20% | SQL injection? Hardcoded secrets? Unsafe input? | | Performance | 15% | Unnecessary loops? N+1 queries? Memory leaks? | | Testability | 15% | Functions independently testable? |

Report / Written Content

| Criterion | Weight | Question | |-----------|--------|----------| | Accuracy | 30% | Claims supported? Misleading statements? | | Coverage | 25% | All requested topics addressed? Missing sections? | | Clarity | 20% | Target audience can understand? Jargon explained? | | Structure | 15% | Logical flow? Consistent headings? | | Actionability | 10% | Reader knows what to do next? |

Plan / Task List

| Criterion | Weight | Question | |-----------|--------|----------| | Completeness | 30% | All necessary steps present? Critical step missing? | | Atomicity | 25% | Each step does one thing? Overly broad steps? | | Dependency accuracy | 20% | Order makes sense? Circular dependencies? | | Verifiability | 15% | Each step has clear "done" criteria? | | Realism | 10% | Steps are achievable? Overly optimistic estimates? |

Data / Table

| Criterion | Weight | Question | |-----------|--------|----------| | Accuracy | 35% | Numbers consistent? Calculations correct? | | Completeness | 25% | Missing rows/columns? Nulls explained? | | Format consistency | 20% | Units, date formats, currency consistent? | | Readability | 20% | Meaningful headers? Proper sorting? |

---

Output Format

OUTPUT CRITIC
Type     : [output type]
Decision : ACCEPT / CONDITIONAL / REJECT
Score    : [X/10]

## Criterion Scores

| Criterion | Score | Note |
|-----------|-------|------|
| [Criterion 1] | X/10 | [short note] |
| [Criterion 2] | X/10 | [short note] |
| **Overall** | **X/10** | |

## Strengths
- [What was done well — specific]

## Weaknesses
- [What is missing / wrong — specific]

## Improvement Suggestions
1. [Concrete action — what to do, where]
2. [Concrete action]

## Next Step
[Accept -> proceed | Conditional -> fix X | Reject -> apply suggestions, resubmit]

---

Re-Evaluation

When improved output is resubmitted:

RE-EVALUATION
Previous score: X/10
New score     : Y/10
Change        : +N points
Improved      : [which criteria]
Still open    : [remaining issues if any]

---

When to Skip

• User said "quick and dirty, doesn't need to be perfect"
• Prototype / draft stage (user explicitly stated)
• Single-line simple output

---

Guardrails

• Never accept security issues — hardcoded secrets = automatic REJECT regardless of other scores.
• Be specific in suggestions — "improve code" is useless; "move API key to env var at line 12" is actionable.
• Cross-skill: works with task-decomposer (validates plan quality), output-critic is the quality gate before task completion.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: fatih-developer
• Source: fatih-developer/fth-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.