diff --git a/skills/criticize/SKILL.md b/skills/criticize/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a1f8b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/criticize/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+---
+name: criticize
+description: >
+  Look at a problem, a plan, a design, a decision, a text, or a piece of code
+  critically from diverse aspects and give constructive criticism: what holds,
+  what does not, why it matters, and what to do instead. Every critique point is
+  hardened with the dialectic skill before it is reported. Trigger on
+  /criticize, "kritisiere", "kritisch betrachten", "konstruktive Kritik",
+  "was haeltst du davon", or when the operator asks for honest feedback on
+  something rather than for a fix. Portable across projects.
+---
+
+The stance is critical but constructive: the goal is a better result, not a
+verdict on its author. This skill judges any artifact from many angles; it is
+not limited to code (`sceptic` hunts violated engineering principles in code,
+`code-review` hunts bugs). Read-only: report the critique, change nothing
+unless the operator asks afterwards.
+
+## Before you start: listen
+
+Invoke the `active-listening` skill. Pin down what is being criticized, what it
+is meant to achieve, for whom, and under which constraints. Derive what you can
+from the artifact and its surroundings first; ask only what only the operator
+knows. A critique against the wrong goal is noise.
+
+## Steelman first
+
+Restate the artifact and its intent in its strongest form, in two or three
+sentences. Criticize that version, never a weaker one you made up. If you cannot
+steelman it, you have not understood it yet; go back to listening.
+
+## The aspects
+
+Sweep every aspect that applies, and name the ones you skipped and why:
+
+1. **Goal fit** - does it solve the stated problem for the stated audience, or
+   a neighbouring one?
+2. **Correctness** - are the facts, the logic, and the claimed cause-effect
+   chains right? Which claim lacks evidence?
+3. **Completeness** - missing cases, missing stakeholders, missing failure
+   paths, missing definition of done.
+4. **Consistency** - contradictions inside the artifact or against its
+   neighbours; the same truth stated twice in two versions.
+5. **Simplicity** - mechanism, scope, or wording the problem never asked for;
+   the smaller design that does the same.
+6. **Feasibility and cost** - effort, dependencies, order of steps, what blocks
+   what, what it costs to run and to maintain.
+7. **Risk** - security at trust boundaries, data loss, reversibility, blast
+   radius, what happens when it fails halfway.
+8. **People** - usability, accessibility, the reader's or user's actual path,
+   who gains, who carries the burden.
+9. **Alternatives** - at least one materially different approach, compared
+   honestly on the aspects above.
+10. **Ethics and compliance** - only where it touches personal data, licences,
+    law, or fairness.
+
+## Harden every point with dialectic
+
+Run each candidate critique through the `dialectic` skill before reporting it:
+
+- **Thesis**: the critique point with its evidence.
+- **Antithesis**: independent defenders argue that the artifact is right as it
+  is, or that the constraint behind it is real; independent skeptics attack the
+  suggested improvement for new problems it would cause.
+- **Synthesis**: keep the point, refine it, or drop it.
+
+Batch minor points into one dialectic round; run consequential points (high
+severity, expensive to act on, or challenging a premise) one by one.
+
+## Output
+
+One line of scope, then the steelman. Then:
+
+- **Keep**: up to three strengths that must survive any change.
+- **Critique**: one ranked table, highest impact first:
+
+| Severity | Aspect | Observation | Why it matters | Suggestion | Evidence |
+
+`Evidence` is `proven` (read, run, reproduced, cited) or `derived` (reasoned).
+
+Close with at most three lines: how many candidate points dialectic dropped and
+why, the single change that helps most, and the `confidence` skill's numbers for
+the critique as a whole.
+
+## Rules
+
+- Every critique carries a concrete suggestion. A complaint without one becomes
+  an open question or is dropped.
+- Criticize the work, never the person. Direct wording, no sarcasm, no
+  softening of a real problem, no inflation of a minor one.
+- A point that attacks a stated constraint or goal is labelled "challenges a
+  premise" and kept apart from points that work within it.
+- No taste or formatting nitpicks unless the operator asks for them.
+- Answer in the operator's language.
+- The critique ends at the report. Do not fix, stage, or rewrite as part of
+  this skill.