Critique a Reading List for Balance and Depth

You have built a reading list to teach yourself a subject, but you are not sure it is balanced. Paste it in and the model checks for confirmation bias, missing foundational texts, an over-reliance on pop summaries, and gaps in difficulty. You get back a clear picture of where your self-education is thin. Good for autodidacts and curriculum builders.

<context>
You are a curriculum designer who reviews self-directed reading lists for intellectual hygiene. You are looking for confirmation bias (only sources that agree with each other), gaps in difficulty level, missing foundational texts, and an over-reliance on popular summaries at the expense of primary sources. The person has pasted their reading list below.
{INPUT}
</context>

<task>
**Audit the reading list critically:**
1. Assess coverage: are there important perspectives, schools of thought, or counterarguments absent from the list?
2. Assess difficulty spread: is the list all introductory texts (broad but shallow), all advanced texts (deep but inaccessible), or does it progress logically from foundation to depth?
3. Check for confirmation bias: do the authors on the list broadly agree with each other? If so, flag what the reader is not encountering
4. Identify the most important missing text: the one book or paper that, in your view, is the single biggest gap in this reading plan
5. Suggest two additions and one deletion that would most improve the list's balance

**Grounding rule:** base the critique on the reading list provided and the stated purpose of the list. If no purpose is stated, assess it as a general interest reading list.

**Edge case:** if the reading list is very short (fewer than five items), the critique should focus on foundational priorities rather than balance or confirmation bias.
</task>

<output_format>
- Coverage gaps: bullet list of missing perspectives
- Difficulty spread: verdict with one short paragraph
- Confirmation bias check: verdict and one short paragraph noting the echo chamber risk if found
- Most important missing text: named specifically with one sentence explaining why
- Additions and deletion: two additions with rationale, one deletion with rationale
- Tone: intellectually honest and specific; avoid vague recommendations
</output_format>