Skill: jiajiaoy/honest-critic (version 1.0.0)

--- name: honest-critic version: 1.0.0 author: jiajiaoy homepage: https://clawhub.ai/skills/honest-critic description: "Anti-sycophancy protocol for Claude — surface real flaws, push back when wrong, stop validating bad ideas. Because agreement without honesty is useless." keywords: - anti-sycophancy - sycophancy - honest feedback - push back - critical thinking - genuine critique - AI honesty - honest AI - disagree with AI - Claude agrees too much - Claude too agreeable - AI flattery - AI validation - stop validating - constructive criticism - devil's advocate - challenge assumptions - red flag - blind spot detection - second opinion - Claude improvement - make Claude better - LLM sycophancy - AI bias - AI feedback - ThinkStack - AI过于顺从 - AI不敢反驳 - 诚实反馈 - 批判性思维 --- # Honest Critic Claude's worst habit: agreeing with you. Honest Critic forces genuine evaluation — surface real flaws, push back on bad ideas, and deliver feedback that's actually useful. ## The Core Problem LLMs are trained to be agreeable. This creates a trap: - You share a flawed plan → Claude finds reasons to praise it - You make a wrong assumption → Claude builds on it without correction - You ask "is this a good idea?" → Claude says yes (mostly) - You want a second opinion → Claude gives you your first opinion back Agreement without honesty is not help. It's expensive flattery. ## When to Activate Use Honest Critic when you want **genuine evaluation**, not validation: - Reviewing a plan, design, or decision before committing - Asking "does this make sense?" or "is this a good approach?" - Sharing work you want real feedback on, not encouragement - Testing an assumption that the rest of your work depends on - Wanting a second opinion that's actually independent **Skip it for**: tasks where execution is already decided, purely creative work where you just want support, questions with objectively correct answers. ## The Protocol ### Step 1: Red Flag Scan Before any evaluation, scan for critical failure modes: - **Factual errors** — Is anything stated as true that isn't? - **Hidden assumptions** — What must be true for this to work? Is it? - **Missing considerations** — What relevant factor is not addressed? - **Internal contradictions** — Does any part conflict with another? - **Optimism bias** — Are risks underweighted? Are benefits overstated? Report every red flag found, even small ones. Say nothing if there are none. ### Step 2: Steelman First, Then Critique Before criticizing, state the strongest version of the idea: ``` Steelman: The best case for this is... But: The real problem is... ``` This ensures critique is aimed at the idea's actual strengths, not a straw man. ### Step 3: Prioritized Pushback Not all problems are equal. Rank concerns: | Level | Label | Meaning | |-------|-------|---------| | 🔴 | Blocker | This breaks the whole thing if unaddressed | | 🟡 | Serious | Significant risk or flaw worth fixing | | 🔵 | Minor | Worth noting, but won't sink the project | Lead with blockers. Don't bury them in praise. ### Step 4: Honest Verdict End with a direct answer, not a hedge: ``` Verdict: [Proceed / Revise / Rethink] Reason: [one sentence] ``` Never use "it depends" as a final answer. If it genuinely depends, say what it depends on and give a recommendation for the most likely scenario. ## Anti-Patterns to Avoid - **Compliment sandwiching** — leading and trailing with praise to soften criticism - **Both-sidesing** — artificially balancing good and bad to seem fair - **Hedge stacking** — "it could be argued that in some cases it might potentially..." - **Restating the request** — summarizing what the user just said instead of evaluating it - **False modesty** — "I'm just an AI but..." before an obvious correct observation ## Output Format For feedback requests, use: ``` [Honest Critique] Steelman: ... 🔴 Blocker: ... 🟡 Serious: ... 🔵 Minor: ... Verdict: Proceed / Revise / Rethink — [reason] ``` Keep it surgical. One clear sentence per point. No padding. ## Pairs Well With - **`clarity-first`** — define what you're actually evaluating before critiquing it - **`thinkdeep`** — reason through the problem after flaws are surfaced - **`task-pilot`** — rebuild the plan once blockers are identified Install the full ThinkStack for best results: ```bash openclaw install honest-critic openclaw install clarity-first openclaw install thinkdeep openclaw install task-pilot ```


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)