Critique a note

Type: kb/types/instruction.md

Experimental, run by hand. Build the strongest case that a note's central commitment is wrong, then check whether the note already answers it. This is not a review gate — it writes no acceptance or freshness state. 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 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.

Output

Write to kb/reports/critique/<note-name>.critique.md. 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>