Judge

Quality review and evaluation skill that verifies completed work against defined criteria. Part of the two-tier multi-agent architecture where Judge evaluates worker output.

Contract

Inputs:

• Completed work output (files, changes, artifacts)
• Original acceptance criteria or success criteria
• Context about what was attempted

Outputs:

• Pass/fail determination
• List of issues found (if any)
• Recommendations for fixes (if failing)

Success Criteria:

• All acceptance criteria evaluated
• Clear pass/fail determination provided
• Actionable feedback given for any failures

When to Use

Invoke the judge skill:

1. After atomic skill completion - Before marking work as done
2. Before committing - Final quality gate
3. After build/test phases - Verify implementation meets spec
4. When reviewing generated code - Catch issues before integration

When NOT to Use

Skip the judge skill for:

• Trivial changes - Single-line fixes, typo corrections
• Mid-workflow - Don't interrupt atomic skills; judge at phase boundaries
• Exploratory work - When user is iterating quickly and explicitly skipping review
• User-requested skip - When user says "just do it" or "skip review"

Review Process

Step 1: Gather Context

Collect the materials needed for review:

1. The output - What was produced (files, code, documents)
2. The criteria - What was supposed to be achieved (acceptance criteria, spec)
3. The scope - What was in/out of scope for this work

Step 2: Evaluate Against Criteria

For each acceptance criterion:

1. Check if the criterion is met
2. Note any partial completion
3. Document evidence (file paths, line numbers, test results)

Use this evaluation format:

## Review: [Work Description]

### Criteria Evaluation

| Criterion | Status | Evidence |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| [Criterion 1] | PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL | [Evidence] |
| [Criterion 2] | PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL | [Evidence] |

### Issues Found

1. [Issue description]
   - **Severity**: Critical/Major/Minor
   - **Location**: [File/line]
   - **Fix**: [Recommended action]

### Verdict

**PASS** / **FAIL** / **PASS WITH NOTES**

[Summary of decision]

Step 3: Apply Review Dimensions

Evaluate across these dimensions based on work type:

For Code Changes

Dimension	Check
Correctness	Does it do what was specified?
Completeness	Are all criteria addressed?
Quality	No obvious bugs, edge cases handled?
Style	Follows project conventions?
Scope	No scope creep beyond criteria?

For Document Generation

Dimension	Check
Accuracy	Information is correct?
Completeness	All required sections present?
Format	Follows expected structure?
Clarity	Understandable to target audience?

For Infrastructure Changes

Dimension	Check
Functionality	Works as expected?
Security	No exposed secrets, proper permissions?
Idempotency	Can be run again safely?
Documentation	Changes documented?

Severity Levels

Level	Definition	Action
Critical	Blocks functionality, security issue, data loss risk	Must fix before proceeding
Major	Significant deviation from spec, poor UX	Should fix before commit
Minor	Style issues, minor improvements	Can note for future

Verdicts

PASS

All criteria met, no critical/major issues. Work can proceed.

FAIL

Critical issues found OR acceptance criteria not met. Work must be revised.

Provide:

• Specific issues with locations
• Recommended fixes
• Which criteria failed

PASS WITH NOTES

All criteria met, but minor issues noted. Work can proceed with awareness of noted items.

Integration with Orchestrators

When used in orchestrated workflows:

1. Orchestrator invokes atomic skill - Work is produced
2. Orchestrator invokes judge - Work is evaluated
3. If PASS - Proceed to next phase
4. If FAIL - Return to previous skill with feedback

This creates the planner/worker/judge pattern that scales.

Quick Review Checklist

For rapid reviews, use this checklist:

## Quick Review

- [ ] All acceptance criteria addressed
- [ ] No obvious bugs or errors
- [ ] Follows project conventions
- [ ] No scope creep
- [ ] Ready to commit/proceed

**Verdict**: PASS / FAIL

References

See references/review-criteria.md for detailed review criteria by skill type.