Honest Critic

SKILL.md

---
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
```