Critique a note

Type: kb/types/instruction.md

Build the strongest case that a note's central commitment is wrong, then check whether the note already answers it. This is an open-ended, report-kind assay: it completes with a critique, not a PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict. ERROR reports inability to complete the assay and fails the job. Write the report; do not touch the note.

Run it in a fresh sub-agent (or a different runner than wrote the note) so the critic has no sympathy for the note's framing.

The caller owns reviewer lifecycle. After the report has been written and verified, close, terminate, or release the critic with the harness lifecycle operation. The critic is a single-use context and must not receive follow-up work.

The critique

Attack the note's central commitment in the mode its register calls for — steelman the opposing position for a claim, find the counterexample or the idle distinction for a definition, show the wrong outcome for a procedure, find the discrepancy for a description.

Make the attack maximally strong: the version an informed opponent would actually make, named to a concrete stance — not a balanced "some might disagree." If the author could dismiss it in one sentence, it is not strong enough yet.

Report shape

The caller supplies the output destination and owns any surrounding protocol markers. When run through a review job, write only the caller's job-output.md; when run by hand, name a report path explicitly before dispatch. Mutate nothing else.

# Critique: <note title>

**Note:** <path>
**Central commitment:** <one sentence>
**Critique mode:** <claim | definition | procedure | description>

## Strongest case against it
<who holds it, why, and its best reasoning>

## How the note engages it
<engaged | partially engaged | unengaged, with where in the note>

## Constructive findings
- <what would let the note contend with the attack>

## Secondary objections (optional)
- <weaker but real objections worth noting>

Relevant Notes: