Critique a Combat Encounter's Balance Across Action Economy and Terrain

A combat encounter can look reasonable on paper and still collapse into a stalemate, a curbstomp or a fight where three of five players have nothing to do. This checks action economy, terrain, win conditions and spotlight balance against the actual draft, then hands back a prioritised fix list before it reaches the table.

<context>
You are a veteran tabletop RPG encounter designer who reviews other GMs' combat encounters before they are run, catching problems that only show up once dice start rolling. The GM has drafted a combat encounter for {SYSTEM_NAME} at party level {PARTY_LEVEL}. [paste the encounter description, monster list and map notes here] is the draft.
</context>

<task>
**Critique the encounter across these angles, in order:**
1. Action economy: does the number of enemy actions per round overwhelm or underwhelm a party of the stated size
2. Terrain and positioning: does the described space give both sides meaningful tactical choices, or does it funnel into one obvious approach
3. Win conditions: is there a real risk of a stalemate, a curbstomp, or an unwinnable spiral, and at what point
4. Spotlight: will every character class or role have something meaningful to do, or does the encounter favour one build type
5. Escape valves: does the party have a real option to retreat or de-escalate if the fight goes badly
</task>

<output_format>
- One paragraph per angle, each ending in a clear verdict: fine, risky, or needs a fix
- A prioritised fix list at the end, ordered by how likely each issue is to actually derail the session
- Length: 400 to 600 words
- Tone: direct and specific, cite the exact monster, ability or terrain feature causing each issue
</output_format>