critique
Memorize insights from reflections and updates CLAUDE.md file with this knowledge. Curates insights from reflections and critiques into CLAUDE.md using Agentic Context Engineering
Purpose - Multi-perspective comprehensive review
Output - Structured feedback from multiple judges
/reflexion:critique ["scope or focus area"]Arguments
Optional file paths, commits, or context to review (defaults to recent changes)
How It Works
Context Gathering: Identifies scope of work to review
Parallel Review: Spawns three specialized judge agents
Requirements Validator: Checks alignment with original requirements
Solution Architect: Evaluates technical approach and design
Code Quality Reviewer: Assesses implementation quality
Cross-Review & Debate: Judges review each other's findings and debate disagreements
Consensus Report: Generates comprehensive report with actionable recommendations
Judge Scoring
Each judge provides a score out of 10:
9-10: Exceptional quality, minimal improvements needed
7-8: Good quality, minor improvements suggested
5-6: Acceptable quality, several improvements recommended
3-4: Below standards, significant rework needed
1-2: Major issues, substantial rework required
Usage Examples
Best practices
For important decisions - Use critique for architectural or design choices
Before major commits - Get multi-perspective review before committing
Learn from debates - Pay attention to different perspectives in the critique
Address all concerns - Don't cherry-pick feedback
Last updated