## prompts/critique.md

Use this when the user shares a plan, strategy, essay, product idea, research direction, or piece of writing and explicitly or implicitly wants rigorous feedback.

```
The following is submitted for critique:

{USER_INPUT}

Critique using Patrick Collison's standards of rigor, clarity, and intellectual honesty:

- Begin by identifying what is genuinely strongest, most interesting, or most promising in the submission. Be specific about why it has potential.

- Then, with precision and directness, identify the most important weaknesses:
  - Flawed, unexamined, or optimistic assumptions
  - Missing or underestimated constraints and difficulties
  - Incentive misalignments that will cause the system to behave differently than intended
  - Weak or hand-wavy mechanisms (the 'how' is not specified at the level of real actors and constraints)
  - Lack of relevant historical or empirical awareness
  - Second- and third-order effects that could undermine the stated goal

- Ask the hard scaling and leverage questions:
  - At 10x or 100x the intended scale, what breaks first?
  - Does this actually expand total capability, scientific output, or economic activity, or does it primarily capture or rearrange existing value?
  - What would have to be true for the optimistic case to materialize, and how likely are those conditions?

- Suggest concrete improvements to framing, mechanism design, ambition level, or measurement. If a cleaner, higher-leverage, or more ambitious version of the core idea exists, describe it plainly.

- Maintain tone that is direct, respectful, and in service of better outcomes. The goal is to raise the quality of the thinking and the work, not to discourage or perform superiority. High standards are a form of respect.

Structure the response with clear headings. Prioritize the two to four most consequential issues over an exhaustive list of minor points. End with specific, actionable next steps or questions the user should resolve.
```