Skip to content
Back to skills

Crit Team

ASecurity

The steward's guided work on a project's TEAM — which agents exist, and which DOMAIN each one owns. Use it (1) right after /crit-scaffold-project, to decide which agents the project should have — a short interview, a MEASURED reading of the repo, a proposed partition the user rules on; (2) at any time, to check whether the partition still fits — which agent has outgrown its domain, which border is in the wrong place, what should split or merge; (3) to conduct a split or a merge step by step. ...

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added October 5, 2026
developmentgogit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 5, 2026

npx -y skills add CritosAI/critos --skill crit-team --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Crit Team?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Crit Team
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/critosai-crit-team/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/critosai-crit-team)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: crit-team
description: >-
  The steward's guided work on a project's TEAM — which agents exist, and which DOMAIN each one
  owns. Use it (1) right after
  /crit-scaffold-project, to decide which agents the project should have — a short interview, a
  MEASURED reading of the repo, a proposed partition the user rules on; (2) at any time, to check
  whether the partition still fits — which agent has outgrown its domain, which border is in the
  wrong place, what should split or merge; (3) to conduct a split or a merge step by step. It
  proposes and conducts structure; it never decides that an agent exists and never writes a
  definition — those are the user's.
---
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 · Copyright 2026 Criticaldrop Entertainment s.r.l. -->

# crit-team

**This is the steward's procedure.** If you are not already the steward, read its definition
(`.claude/agents/agent-1.md`) and the contracts it cites before step 1: from here you speak as
the steward. The steward is `native`, and this procedure runs it as a conversation — legal
(`contract-agent § 2`: a native agent can also be run as a session), and necessary: an interview
needs turns.

**Before anything, check the layer exists:** `.critos/project/agents.md` and
`.claude/agents/agent-1.md`. If they do not, the repo was never scaffolded: say so, say that
`/crit-scaffold-project` creates the layer, and offer to run it. You may still measure and
propose — but nothing after the user's ruling can be written until the layer exists.

**The method** — what a domain is, where borders go, the signals — is the guide
`guide-domains.md`. The project keeps no pointer to CritOS, so find the guide from where this
skill lives: `git -C ~/.claude/skills/crit-team rev-parse --show-toplevel` prints the CritOS
checkout; the guide is `docs/guide-domains.md` under it. Read it before proposing anything; if
it cannot be found, say so and work from this file alone.

Three rules hold in every mode:

- **Measure before you speak.** Every claim about the repo in your proposal quotes a number and
  the command that produced it. An impression is not a finding. What the user TOLD you is
  evidence too, and often the decisive one — quote it as theirs (*"from you, not from git"*),
  never dressed as a measurement.
- **Propose, then stop.** The user decides that an agent exists, picks its form, and approves
  its definition (`contract-agent § 4`). You never create an agent.
- **Say what is yours and what is only the user's**, every time, at the end.

Pick the mode from what the user asked; if unclear, ask.

## Mode 1 · First setup — which agents should this project have?

1. **Interview, briefly.** Ask, and wait for the answers: what the project is and who uses it ·
   how the user works on it (alone, with how many agents at once, on which parts) · what hurts
   today (lost context, agents overwriting each other, work declared done that is not) ·
   whether there are other repos that belong to the same project · and the two facts the
   user's settings file needs and only the user has: the **display timezone**, and any
   **standing directive** that binds every agent. Ask them HERE, once — never at the end.
2. **Read the repo, measured.**
   - *What each part is* — the top-level structure, from the files themselves; from folder
     names alone if the content says nothing.
   - *Where the work has been* — file touches per area, over a long window because a first
     setup wants the whole recent history (the health check of Mode 2 uses 30 days):
     `git log --since=90.days --name-only --format= | cut -d/ -f1-2 | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -20`.
     These are touches, not commits, and they include the first commit: say so when it matters.
   - *What changes together* — areas that share commits are one domain more often than two:
     `git log --since=90.days --name-only --format=@%h | awk '/^@/{if(n>1)print a; n=0; a=""; split("",s); next} NF{split($0,p,"/"); k=p[1]"/"p[2]; if(!(k in s)){s[k]=1; n++; a=a" "k}} END{if(n>1)print a}'`
     (each output line is one commit that touched more than one area).
   - *Operational surfaces* — deploy, schema, secrets and config files, and who has been
     editing them: `git log --format=%s -- <file>`. They are usually a border, not a domain.
   - *What the history cannot tell you* — a repo whose commits all sit on a few days has no
     rhythm to measure: say that the window is the whole history, and weigh it as such.
3. **Propose a partition.** As few domains as the evidence supports — **one is a legitimate
   answer**, and the honest one for a small project **worked one session at a time**. How the
   user works is an input, not a detail: a memory folder has exactly one writer
   (`contract-memory`, the invariant), so two sessions open at once are two agents — or one of
   them is writing where it must not. Propose the next free agent numbers; the user confirms
   them. For each domain: its name · what it owns,
   as a place · its border with each neighbour · why it deserves an owner (life of its own,
   decisions that accumulate) · `session` or `native`, and why. Then the things that sit ON a
   border, each assigned to one side. Quote your numbers.
4. **Wait for the ruling.** The user keeps, changes or rejects each domain.
5. **Draft, for approval.** For each agent the user approved: a definition from
   `agent-definition.md.tmpl`, all six fields, *What I do NOT do* first in your attention — the
   edge is where the neighbour begins. Present each draft; the user edits and approves; only
   then is it written.
   **`settings.md` is held to the SAME rule, more strictly — it is the USER's file**
   (`contract-system § 2`: *an agent proposes, never decides*; its named failure is an agent
   granting itself a directive). Draft what fills its `<TODO>`s — *What this project is*, the
   timezone, the directives the user gave you, a *Mandatory reading* line if a document earned
   it — **show the text in chat, and write it only on the user's yes.** Never write it first and
   ask for a read-over afterwards: a directive that is committed before it is approved is a
   directive the agent gave itself. A directive the user DICTATES in so many words is
   transcribed as dictated, dated — that is writing on his word, not deciding.
   Then: the roster rows and write-surface rows, the memory folders —
   `scaffold.sh --agent-memory <N> "<domain>"` of `/crit-scaffold-project`, never by hand — `/crit-memory-index`, `/crit-doc-lint`, one local commit.

## Mode 2 · Does the partition still fit?

1. For each rostered agent, take the signals of `guide-domains § 4` — commit share per area
   inside its domain, the shape of its `STATUS`, its logs against budget and by topic, the inbox
   traffic to and from it, the borders where it bounces. Quote each number with its command.
2. **Conclude per agent:** *keep* · *split* (which slice, along which border) · *merge* (into
   whom) · *move a border* · *add a write-surface row*. One signal is an observation; two or
   three pointing the same way are a case. Say which it is.
3. **Check the moment** (`contract-memory § 7`): is the owner in the middle of work that
   defines the domain? Then the recommendation is *after it closes*, and say what closes it.
4. Stop. The user decides.

## Mode 3 · Conducting a split or a merge

Only after the user has ruled. Tell each actor its move, in order, and do only your own.

**A split** (`contract-memory § 7`):
1. *The user* — decides the agent exists, its number and form, and approves its definition.
2. *You* — roster row, write-surface rows for the new border, the memory folder (the same
   script), the atlas; one inbox line telling every correspondent who the new addressee is.
3. *The previous owner* — hands over: one inbox entry to the new agent listing the ids of the
   domain's decisions and lessons that are still law, plus the `STATUS` section it cedes.
4. *The new agent*, first session — writes its founding block (its first ADRs consolidate that
   law, each naming the ids it consolidates) and its own `STATUS`.
5. *The previous owner* — marks the originals *superseded by* the new ids, drops the ceded
   section from its `STATUS`, archives.
6. *You* — `/crit-doc-lint`: `[21]` must find every id the founding block names; the atlas
   regenerated; one local commit per writer's round, never one for all.

**A merge** (`contract-memory § 0`): *the user* rules it · *the absorbing agent* folds the other
log's live entries into its own folder, ids untouched, and rewrites its `STATUS` · *you* retire
the roster row, move the emptied folder's files to the absorbing agent's `archive/`, regenerate
the atlas, tell the correspondents.

## Report

Close every mode the same way: what you measured · what you propose, or did · **what is yours
next, and what only the user can do**.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.