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.
