feat(criticize): give constructive criticism hardened by dialectic

The skill judges any artifact, not only code: it listens for goal,
audience and constraints first, steelmans the artifact, sweeps ten
aspects from goal fit to ethics, and runs every critique point through
dialectic before it is reported. Output is the steelman, the strengths
to keep, and one ranked table where each point carries a concrete
suggestion and its evidence class. It changes nothing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

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.