dan
f12dcda4d8
Ships @openprose/reactor 0.3.0, @openprose/reactor-cli 0.2.0, @openprose/reactor-devtools 0.2.0: the Reactor harness (compile-once-intelligent then dumb reconciler, content-addressed receipts, cost scales with surprise) with the distilled ideal public API — curated front door, full @openai/agents passthrough, one typed handle, one Substrate, unified observe, branded ids, and additive forward seams for the fixpoint.
2.4 KiB
name, kind
| name | kind |
|---|---|
| critic | function |
Critic
Evaluate a work product against stated quality criteria and produce a structured accept/reject verdict with reasoning. Use critic when the judgment is subjective -- does this meet the bar? Is the writing clear? Is the analysis thorough? Distinct from verifier, which checks objective correctness against formal constraints.
Description
Evaluate a work product against quality criteria and render a subjective verdict.
Metadata
version: 0.1.0
Parameters
- result: the work product to evaluate
- criteria: what constitutes acceptance (quality standards, not formal rules)
- task: the original task description, for context on what the result was supposed to accomplish
Returns
- evaluation: a structured verdict containing:
- verdict: "accept" or "reject"
- reasoning: why the criteria are or are not met -- specific, not "looks good"
- issues: specific, actionable problems found (each states what is wrong and why)
- suggestions: concrete next steps to address each issue (not restatements of the issues)
The returned evaluation satisfies these postconditions: if the verdict is "accept", the reasoning explains why the criteria are satisfied, with evidence; if the verdict is "reject", at least one issue is listed. The critic does not fix the result -- the returned evaluation identifies problems and suggests directions only.
Errors
- missing-criteria: no evaluable criteria were provided
- incompatible-result: the result is not the type of artifact the criteria apply to (e.g., criteria for a report applied to raw data)
Strategies
- when evaluating: parse criteria into individual conditions and assess each independently before synthesizing a verdict
- when criteria conflict: note the tension explicitly rather than silently privileging one criterion over another
- when the result is close to passing: do not lower the bar -- reject with specific guidance on what would make it acceptable
- when accepting: still note minor issues as suggestions, even if they do not warrant rejection
Notes
Critic renders quality judgments. Verifier checks formal correctness. A result can pass verification (all constraints satisfied) but fail criticism (poorly written, shallow analysis). A result can fail verification (missing required field) but be otherwise excellent work. Use critic for "is this good enough?" and verifier for "is this correct?"