Let's unpack Conifold's comment because there's a lot of conceptualization packed into his comment!
Your examples are not so much of invalidating criticism as of judging opinions as insufficiently informed, and hence lacking authority.
Technically speaking, a fallacy is a species of argument that is persuasive but erroneous, and an argument must contain two or more premises and a conclusion. This is what Conifold means when he uses the phrase 'substantive argument'. There's some wrangling involved with how much of the argument can be implicit or explicit. Strict interpretations of argumentation prefer that all propositions be explicitly stated, and the moderate position is that an argument may have one or a few unstated propositions relative to the argument length which can be inferred. Either way, what is important is to recognize that one must cite an argument.
As Conifold uses the term 'judgment', he means opinion. When an opinion is connected to reason by the use of words such as 'because', it becomes an argument. Does your example have two premises? WP's article enthymeme discusses the truncated syllogism and implicit premises. So, let's transform one of your examples into an explicit argument:
"You can't tell that someone's cooking is bad because you are a terrible cook."
P1 You are a terrible cook. (explicit)
P2 One must not be a terrible cook to know good cooking. (implicit)
C You cannot tell if someone's cooking is bad.
When we lay bare the implicit premise here, that it is necessary to be an authority of sorts on cooking to criticize, we do bump up against some form of appeal to authority. The more common subspecies is appeal to false authority in which someone attributes truth to a proposition based on a non-justified claim to expert testimony. "Global warming isn't happening because my cousin who took Earth science says it doesn't make sense." But your example is an appeal to accomplishment because it discards the conclusion of someone based on their activity rather than their knowledge. This is also known as a subspecies of the genetic fallacy.
Ultimately, your example listed above has a bad premise. While one's demonstrated culinary skills may lend credence to the notion that one has the knowledge, it in no way guarantees it. In fact, in Blink by Malcolm Gladwell summarizes scientific studies that refute that expertise in skills entails expertise in knowledge. That's because one can perform subconsciously and misattribute consciously one's own motivations.
In philosophy, this is known as the dichotomy of knowledge-how and knowledge-that and aligns with the psychological models of procedural and semantic memories. Must one be a master vintner to be an expert on wines? No. Must one have had theorems published to be in an expert in theorems? No. Must one be able to build and repair cars to know about cars and drive them well? No. Of course, having those skills would be evidence of expertise, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What this is turns on the content of criticism, which is unclear from the descriptions. Your examples are not so much of invalidating criticism as of judging opinions as insufficiently informed, and hence lacking authority. Judgments are not arguments, and so can not be fallacies, and if the criticism is itself a (negative) judgment the response may well be appropriate. If, on the other hand, it is a substantive argument then it might be what Wikipedia calls appeal to accomplishment, although its examples are equally dubious. – Conifold