agentleFS
Sign inStart free
svg153svg153/skills/skills/judgment-day/SKILL.md

judgment-day

Skill1 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub

Trigger: judgment day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run blind dual review, fix confirmed issues, then re-judge.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Wait for both judges before synthesis.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask before fixing Round 1 confirmed issues.

    line 20
  3. Very specific:

    After any fix agent runs, immediately re-launch both judges in parallel before commit/push/done/session summary.

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    After 2 fix iterations with remaining issues, ask the user whether to continue.

    line 23
  5. Distinctive:

    Start Judge A and Judge B concurrently via delegation.

    line 40
  6. Distinctive:

    Ask before Round 1 fixes; delegate a separate fix agent for confirmed approved fixes only.

    line 42
  7. Distinctive:

    Before any terminal action, verify every active Judgment Day has a terminal state.

    line 44

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Activation Contract

Load this skill only when the user explicitly asks for Judgment Day, dual/adversarial review, or equivalent Spanish trigger (juzgar, que lo juzguen). Review a specific target: files, feature, PR, or architecture slice.

Hard Rules

  • Resolve project skills before launching agents: read skill registry, match skill paths by target files/task, and inject the same Skills to load before work block into both judge prompts and fix prompts.
  • Launch two blind judges in parallel with identical target and criteria; never review the code yourself.
  • Wait for both judges before synthesis; never accept a partial verdict.
  • Classify warnings as WARNING (real) only if normal intended use can trigger them; otherwise downgrade to INFO as WARNING (theoretical).
  • Ask before fixing Round 1 confirmed issues.
  • After any fix agent runs, immediately re-launch both judges in parallel before commit/push/done/session summary.
  • Terminal states are only JUDGMENT: APPROVED or JUDGMENT: ESCALATED.
  • After 2 fix iterations with remaining issues, ask the user whether to continue.

Decision Gates

ConditionAction
Target unclearAsk for scope; do not launch judges.
No skill registryWarn, proceed with generic criteria, and record Skill Resolution: none.
Both judges find same CRITICAL/real WARNINGConfirmed; ask/fix according to round rules.
One judge finds issueSuspect; report and triage, do not auto-fix.
Judges contradictEscalate for manual decision.
Round 2+ has only theoretical warnings/suggestionsReport as INFO; do not re-judge.

Execution Steps

  1. Confirm target and optional custom criteria.
  2. Resolve exact skill paths from registry or warn if missing.
  3. Start Judge A and Judge B concurrently via delegation.
  4. Synthesize findings into confirmed, suspect, contradiction, and INFO buckets.
  5. Ask before Round 1 fixes; delegate a separate fix agent for confirmed approved fixes only.
  6. Re-judge in parallel after fixes; repeat until approved, escalated, or user asks to stop.
  7. Before any terminal action, verify every active Judgment Day has a terminal state.

Output Contract

Return ## Judgment Day — {target} with round number, verdict table, confirmed/suspect/contradiction counts, fixes applied, re-judgment result, Skill Resolution, and final JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅ or JUDGMENT: ESCALATED ⚠️.

References

  • references/prompts-and-formats.md — judge/fix prompts, warning rubric, verdict tables, and language snippets.

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