agentleFS
Sign inStart free
PthahnixPthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine/skills/adjudicate-exchange/SKILL.md

adjudicate-exchange

Skill504 starsChanged 49 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Evaluate competing arguments against stated criteria and produce a reasoned verdict with uncertainty.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Every argument and critique is addressed explicitly.

    line 26

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

adjudicate-exchange

Purpose

Evaluate competing arguments against stated criteria and produce a reasoned verdict with uncertainty.

Input contract

required: [arguments, critique_set, adjudication_criteria]
optional: [evidence_records, burden_of_proof, verdict_vocabulary]
constraints: [each argument and critique receives an explicit disposition]

Procedure

  1. Normalize claims, warrants, evidence, and objections.
  2. Map each objection to the argument component it tests.
  3. Weigh support and weaknesses against the supplied criteria.
  4. Emit ACCEPT, REJECT, or REVISE with conditions and uncertainty.

Output contract

produces: [verdict, argument_dispositions, conditions, uncertainty_statement]
delta_fields: [decisions, findings, uncertainties]

Quality gates

  • Every argument and critique is addressed explicitly.
  • Evidence is weighed without prior commitment to either side.
  • Verdict vocabulary and conditions are caller-visible.

Parameterization

Caller supplies argument schema, critique schema, criteria, burden of proof, and verdict vocabulary.

Failure and counterexamples

Reject verdicts that omit objections, rely on prior commitment, or collapse uncertainty into confidence.

Provenance map

  • concept: stress-test/debate-judge
  • concept: convergence/judge-verdict

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free