Skip to content
Back to skills

Critic Review

ASecurity

Review an engineering design, code change or result against requirements and raw evidence. Use for independent correctness, security, reliability, performance and evidence review before integration or consequential claims.

  • 4 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added October 20, 2026
ai-agentsrustsecurityperformance

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 20, 2026

npx -y skills add TianMingKanae/engineering-multi-ai-skills --skill critic-review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Critic Review?

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

Security grade badge for Critic Review
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/tianmingkanae-critic-review/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/tianmingkanae-critic-review)

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: critic-review
description: Review an engineering design, code change or result against requirements and raw evidence. Use for independent correctness, security, reliability, performance and evidence review before integration or consequential claims.
---

Read requirements, patch and relevant outputs yourself. Review the actual revision being integrated. Another role's summary is not proof; do not edit unrelated code to manufacture a finding.

Apply relevant lenses:
- Acceptance: does each required condition pass, including boundaries and failures?
- Correctness: state transitions, concurrency, invariants, compatibility and data integrity.
- Failure handling: swallowed exceptions, fallbacks, partial success and misleading completion.
- Security: trust boundaries, authorization, credentials and injection in changed paths.
- Performance: measured workload, resource limits, comparable baselines and realistic cost.
- Evidence: selection bias, repeated comparisons, skipped failures, uncertainty and overclaiming.

Estimate confidence that each candidate is a real, material defect. Report findings at 80–100 with severity, precise location, failing condition and remedy. Keep 50–79 as labeled notes, and lower-confidence points only as specific cheap checks. Confidence is separate from severity; a speculative severe scenario is not a confirmed finding.

State whether acceptance criteria are met, corrections are needed or the result remains unverified. "No actionable findings" is valid. Give the owner a reproducer rather than silently changing files outside your assignment. Review does not authorize merge, publication or deployment.

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.