Speckit Critique Run

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Pre-Execution Checks

Check for extension hooks (before critique):

• Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root.
• If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.before_critique key
• If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
• Filter out hooks where enabled is explicitly false. Treat hooks without an enabled field as enabled by default.
• For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook condition expressions:
  • If the hook has no condition field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable
  • If the hook defines a non-empty condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
• For each executable hook, output the following based on its optional flag:
  • Optional hook (optional: true):

    ## Extension Hooks
    
    **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension}
    Command: `/{command}`
    Description: {description}
    
    Prompt: {prompt}
    To execute: `/{command}`

  • Mandatory hook (optional: false):

    ## Extension Hooks
    
    **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension}
    Executing: `/{command}`
    EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command}
    
    Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Outline.

• If no hooks are registered or .specify/extensions.yml does not exist, skip silently

Goal

Challenge the specification and implementation plan through two distinct expert lenses BEFORE committing to implementation. The Product Lens evaluates whether the right problem is being solved in the right way for users. The Engineering Lens evaluates whether the technical approach is sound, scalable, and free of hidden risks. This dual review prevents costly mid-implementation pivots and catches strategic and technical blind spots early.

Operating Constraints

STRICTLY READ-ONLY FOR EXISTING ARTIFACTS: During this command, do not directly modify existing project files such as spec.md, plan.md, or other source/docs. You may create a new critique report under FEATURE_DIR/critiques/critique-{timestamp}.md. Propose, but do not apply, edits to spec.md/plan.md; applying any changes requires explicit user approval in a follow-up step or command after the user reviews the findings.

CONSTRUCTIVE CHALLENGE: The goal is to strengthen the spec and plan, not to block progress. Every critique item must include a constructive suggestion for improvement.

Constitution Authority: The project constitution (.specify/memory/constitution.md) defines non-negotiable principles. Any spec/plan element conflicting with the constitution is automatically a 🎯 Must-Address item.

Outline

1. Run .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --include-tasks from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list. All paths must be absolute. For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").

2. Load Critique Context:

   • REQUIRED: Read spec.md for requirements, user stories, and acceptance criteria
   • REQUIRED: Read plan.md for architecture, tech stack, and implementation phases
   • IF EXISTS: Read .specify/memory/constitution.md for governing principles
   • IF EXISTS: Read tasks.md for task breakdown (if already generated)
   • IF EXISTS: Read previous critique reports in FEATURE_DIR/critiques/ for context

3. Product Lens Review (CEO/Product Lead Perspective):

   Adopt the mindset of an experienced product leader who cares deeply about user value, market fit, and business impact. Evaluate:

   3a. Problem Validation

   • Is the problem statement clear and well-defined?
   • Is this solving a real user pain point, or is it a solution looking for a problem?
   • What evidence supports the need for this feature? (user research, data, customer requests)
   • Is the scope appropriate — not too broad (trying to do everything) or too narrow (missing the core value)?

   3b. User Value Assessment

   • Does every user story deliver tangible user value?
   • Are the acceptance criteria written from the user's perspective (outcomes, not implementation)?
   • Is the user journey complete — or are there gaps where users would get stuck?
   • What's the simplest version that would deliver 80% of the value? (MVP analysis)
   • Are there unnecessary features that add complexity without proportional value?

   3c. Alternative Approaches

   • Could a simpler solution achieve the same outcome?
   • Are there existing tools, libraries, or services that could replace custom implementation?
   • What would a competitor's approach look like?
   • What would happen if this feature were NOT built? What's the cost of inaction?

   3d. Edge Cases & User Experience

   • What happens when things go wrong? (error states, empty states, loading states)
   • How does this feature interact with existing functionality?
   • Are accessibility considerations addressed?
   • Is the feature discoverable and intuitive?
   • What are the onboarding/migration implications for existing users?

   3e. Success Measurement

   • Are the success criteria measurable and time-bound?
   • How will you know if this feature is successful after launch?
   • What metrics should be tracked?
   • What would trigger a rollback decision?

4. Engineering Lens Review (Staff Engineer Perspective):

   Adopt the mindset of a senior staff engineer who has seen projects fail due to hidden technical risks. Evaluate:

   4a. Architecture Soundness

   • Does the architecture follow established patterns for this type of system?
   • Are boundaries and interfaces well-defined (separation of concerns)?
   • Is the architecture testable at each layer?
   • Are there circular dependencies or tight coupling risks?
   • Does the architecture support future evolution without major refactoring?

   4b. Failure Mode Analysis

   • What are the most likely failure modes? (network failures, data corruption, resource exhaustion)
   • How does the system degrade gracefully under each failure mode?
   • What happens under peak load? Is there a scaling bottleneck?
   • What are the blast radius implications — can a failure in this feature affect other parts of the system?
   • Are retry, timeout, and circuit-breaker strategies defined?

   4c. Security & Privacy Review

   • What is the threat model? What attack vectors does this feature introduce?
   • Are trust boundaries clearly defined (user input, API responses, third-party data)?
   • Is sensitive data handled appropriately (encryption, access control, retention)?
   • Are there compliance implications (GDPR, SOC2, HIPAA)?
   • Is the principle of least privilege followed?

   4d. Performance & Scalability

   • Are there potential bottlenecks in the data flow?
   • What are the expected data volumes? Will the design handle 10x growth?
   • Are caching strategies appropriate and cache invalidation well-defined?
   • Are database queries optimized (indexing, pagination, query complexity)?
   • Are there resource-intensive operations that should be async or batched?

   4e. Testing Strategy

   • Is the testing plan comprehensive (unit, integration, E2E)?
   • Are the critical paths identified for priority testing?
   • Is the test data strategy realistic?
   • Are there testability concerns (hard-to-mock dependencies, race conditions)?
   • Is the test coverage target appropriate for the risk level?

   4f. Operational Readiness

   • Is observability planned (logging, metrics, tracing)?
   • Are alerting thresholds defined?
   • Is there a rollback strategy?
   • Are database migrations reversible?
   • Is the deployment strategy clear (blue-green, canary, feature flags)?

   4g. Dependencies & Integration Risks

   • Are third-party dependencies well-understood (stability, licensing, maintenance)?
   • Are integration points with existing systems well-defined?
   • What happens if an external service is unavailable?
   • Are API versioning and backward compatibility considered?

5. Cross-Lens Synthesis: Identify items where both lenses converge (these are highest priority):

   • Product simplification that also reduces engineering risk
   • Engineering constraints that affect user experience
   • Scope adjustments that improve both value delivery and technical feasibility

6. Severity Classification: Classify each finding:

   • 🎯 Must-Address: Blocks proceeding to implementation. Critical product gap, security vulnerability, architecture flaw, or constitution violation. Must be resolved before /speckit.tasks.
   • 💡 Recommendation: Strongly suggested improvement that would significantly improve quality, value, or risk profile. Should be addressed but won't block progress.
   • 🤔 Question: Ambiguity or assumption that needs stakeholder input. Cannot be resolved by the development team alone.

7. Generate Critique Report: Ensure the directory FEATURE_DIR/critiques/ exists (create it if necessary), then create the critique report at FEATURE_DIR/critiques/critique-{timestamp}.md using .specify/templates/critique-template.md as the required structure. The report must include:

   • Executive Summary: Overall assessment and readiness to proceed
   • Product Lens Findings: Organized by subcategory (3a-3e)
   • Engineering Lens Findings: Organized by subcategory (4a-4g)
   • Cross-Lens Insights: Items where both perspectives converge
   • Findings Summary Table: All items with ID, lens, severity, summary, suggestion

   Findings Table Format:

   ID	Lens	Severity	Category	Finding	Suggestion
   P1	Product	🎯	Problem Validation	No evidence of user need	Conduct 5 user interviews or reference support tickets
   E1	Engineering	💡	Failure Modes	No retry strategy for API calls	Add exponential backoff with circuit breaker
   X1	Both	🎯	Scope × Risk	Feature X adds complexity with unclear value	Defer to v2; reduces both scope and technical risk

8. Provide Verdict: Based on findings, provide one of:

   • ✅ PROCEED: No must-address items. Spec and plan are solid. Run /speckit.tasks to proceed.
   • ⚠️ PROCEED WITH UPDATES: Must-address items found but are resolvable. Offer to apply fixes to spec/plan, then proceed.
   • 🛑 RETHINK: Fundamental product or architecture concerns. Recommend revisiting the spec with /speckit.specify or the plan with /speckit.plan.

9. Offer Remediation: For each must-address item and recommendation:

   • Provide a specific suggested edit to spec.md or plan.md
   • Ask: "Would you like me to apply these changes? (all / select / none)"
   • If user approves, apply changes to the relevant files
   • After applying changes, recommend re-running /speckit.critique to verify