Shred It

Shred It#

Run a deep adversarial critique of an idea, proposal, paper, grant, product concept, or early research hypothesis.

Note

Generated artifacts use the platform orchestration adapter. Claude can use agent teams where available; Codex and OpenCode ask before subagents and otherwise use the sequential persona fallback.

Description#

The shred-it skill acts as a rigorous external reviewer. It maps the idea, performs external research, checks prior art, tests feasibility and ambition, looks for logic gaps, and produces concrete mitigations or kill criteria.

It is intentionally unsentimental. Praise is reserved for ideas that are genuinely supported by evidence, novelty, feasibility, and impact.

Relationship to Other Skills#

  • Pre-mortem assumes a plan failed and explains why. Shred-it evaluates whether the underlying idea deserves to proceed at all.

  • Council validates a plan from multiple perspectives. Shred-it adds external research, prior-art checks, novelty analysis, and iterative rebuttal handling.

  • Debate argues two sides. Shred-it maps, researches, critiques, and proposes mitigations.

Triggers#

The skill activates when you mention:

  • shred it

  • shred this idea

  • critique this idea

  • stress test this idea

  • external reviewer-style feedback

Input Format#

Shred-it accepts inline idea text or a markdown file with optional YAML frontmatter.

vi .claude/shred-it.md  # or .codex/shred-it.md / .opencode/shred-it.md

Search order:

  1. Inline idea text in the user’s request

  2. Explicit path provided by the user

  3. the platform default input file in the current repository root

  4. legacy .claude/shred-it.md input

  5. ask the user for an idea if no input is found

Frontmatter Fields#

All fields are optional.

Field

Type

Default

Description

reviewers

list

5 reviewers

Reviewer definitions

rounds

int

2

Number of inter-reviewer challenge rounds

output_dir

string

"resources/agent-docs/reviews/shred-it"

Where reports are written

context_budget_kb

int

100

Max total KB for embedded @file context

research_depth

string

"standard"

quick / standard / deep

domains

list

[]

Optional topic domains

previous_report

string

""

Prior shred-it report for iterative review

response

string

""

User rebuttal or revised idea

Default Reviewers#

Shred-it uses five complementary reviewers:

Reviewer

Focus

Prior-Art Researcher

Publications, patents, products, failed attempts, adjacent work

Feasibility Reviewer

Resources, data, permissions, staffing, timelines, operations

Logic and Evidence Critic

Causal leaps, undefined terms, unsupported claims, weak comparisons

Ambition and Impact Reviewer

Novelty, contribution, scope, user need, incentive alignment

Blockers and Mitigations Reviewer

Hard blockers, ethics, regulation, adoption, IP, kill criteria

Research Behaviour#

External research is required unless the user explicitly requests an offline-only critique. The skill prefers domain-specific MCPs or APIs where available, then primary databases and official sources, then general web search.

For biomedical, legal, financial, safety-critical, or policy ideas, the final report should cite authoritative or primary sources and distinguish confirmed facts from inference and speculation.

Workflow#

  1. Find and parse input

    • Accept inline text or locate the markdown file

    • Parse frontmatter

    • Read prior report and response files for iterative reviews

  2. Embed local context

    • Scan for @file references outside code fences

    • Read or condense files within context_budget_kb

  3. Build an idea map

    • Core claim

    • Mechanism or implementation path

    • Intended users

    • Required resources and permissions

    • Success metrics

    • Implied assumptions

    • Evidence-dependent claims

  4. Perform external research

    • quick: at least 5 targeted searches and 5 relevant sources

    • standard: at least 10 targeted searches and 8 relevant sources

    • deep: at least 15 targeted searches and 12 relevant sources

  5. Run reviewers

    • Each reviewer critiques from a specialist perspective

    • Reviewers cite evidence, assign severity, propose mitigations, and set kill criteria

  6. Run challenge rounds

    • Reviewers see each other’s findings

    • They identify missed issues, weak evidence, duplicated concerns, and unjustified severity ratings

  7. Synthesize final report

    • Verdict: PROCEED, REVISE, HOLD, or KILL

    • Research trail

    • Prior-art analysis

    • Critical issue register

    • Feasibility, ambition, logic, and blocker assessments

    • Mitigations and smallest decisive next tests

    • Iteration ledger when applicable

Iterative Reviews#

When previous_report and response are provided, shred-it preserves issue IDs and marks each previous issue as:

  • resolved

  • partially resolved

  • unchanged

  • worse

  • superseded

A rebuttal only resolves an issue when it provides evidence or a concrete design change.

Contents