Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
59
69%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./plugins/_official/atoms/critique-theater/SKILL.mdBefore you hand an artifact over, review it against five dimensions and fix what falls short. This is a quality bar, not a performance: do the review, apply the fixes, and describe the outcome in ordinary prose.
Judge the artifact you just produced from five angles. Each one owns its own scope; do not let a strength in one excuse a failure in another.
Record each concrete defect and fix it in the same turn. A finding you cannot fix is worth stating plainly, with the reason, so the user can decide.
Keep iterating while defects remain and you still have room to work. Stop when the artifact clears all five dimensions, or when further rounds stop producing real improvements — whichever comes first. Three passes is a sensible ceiling.
OD_MAX_DEVLOOP_ITERATIONS caps the outer plugin pipeline stage; it is not
this review's round limit. A pipeline's critique.score signal is a
scheduler-facing projection, not something you should write into your answer.
Write the outcome the way you would write any other part of your answer: plain prose, in the user's language, saying what you checked, what you fixed, and anything you deliberately left alone.
Do not invent a structured review transcript, a scored panel, a cast of named
reviewer personas, or any tag-based envelope around your answer. Do not write a
critique.json file into the project. None of those are inputs to anything —
they only add noise to the user's chat.
1b47e60
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.