Cross Critique

When you've got multiple subagents who've independently proposed different solutions to the same problem, this runs a second round where each one critiques the others' proposals with structured pros and cons. The authors have deeper context than you do from their investigation, so letting them poke holes in each other's reasoning surfaces tradeoffs and failure modes you'd miss if you just synthesized their reports yourself. Use it for contested decisions like architecture tradeoffs, code review disagreements, or competing root cause theories. It adds latency and tokens, so skip it when proposals already agree or when there's an objectively verifiable answer. Pairs naturally with council and research skills whenever independent work diverges.

skills.sh installs: 22.1K
GitHub stars: 684
last updated: Aug 21, 2026

View on GitHub

Install

$ npx -y skills add warpdotdev/common-skills --skill cross-critique --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Files

Cross-Critique

Use this skill to run a second round after several subagents have independently produced proposals or opinions on the same contested question. Instead of synthesizing their reports yourself, you circulate each proposal to the other authors and ask them to critique it — pros and cons — and then you synthesize the richer set of analyses that results.

Why this matters

When you generate independent proposals (different models, different angles), each author ends up with deep context on the question — often deeper than yours, since they did the investigation. If you jump straight to synthesizing their reports alone, you're the bottleneck: you can only see the tradeoffs you happen to notice.

Asking the authors to critique each other is what a good leader does when seeking advice: get a few people with differing perspectives in a room, let them poke holes in each other's reasoning, and you walk away with a far more complete picture than any one of them — or you — would produce alone. The authors will surface failure modes, hidden assumptions, and tradeoffs that neither you nor the original proposer flagged.