judgment-day
Parallel adversarial review protocol that launches two independent blind judge sub-agents simultaneously to review the same target, synthesizes their findings, applies fixes, and re-judges until both pass or escalates after 2 iterations. Trigger: When user says "judgment day", "judgment-day", "review adversarial", "dual review", "doble review", "juzgar", "que lo juzguen".
90
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that clearly articulates a unique, well-defined capability with specific concrete actions and an explicit trigger clause containing multiple natural-language variations. The description is concise yet comprehensive, covering the full workflow (launch, review, synthesize, fix, re-judge, escalate) and providing distinct trigger terms in both English and Spanish. The only minor note is that the trigger terms are quite specific/custom phrases rather than broadly discoverable terms, but this actually helps distinctiveness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: launches two independent blind judge sub-agents simultaneously, reviews the same target, synthesizes findings, applies fixes, re-judges until both pass, and escalates after 2 iterations. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (parallel adversarial review with dual blind judges, synthesis, fixes, re-judging) and 'when' (explicit 'Trigger:' clause with specific phrases that activate the skill). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Provides explicit trigger phrases including natural variations in both English and Spanish: 'judgment day', 'judgment-day', 'review adversarial', 'dual review', 'doble review', 'juzgar', 'que lo juzguen'. These are specific phrases a user would actually say. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — a parallel dual-agent adversarial review protocol with very specific trigger phrases like 'judgment day' and 'dual review' that are unlikely to conflict with generic code review or document review skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted orchestration protocol with excellent actionability and workflow clarity — the decision tree, prompt templates, and output formats leave little room for ambiguity. Its main weakness is moderate verbosity: the decision tree duplicates the pattern descriptions, and some sections contain obvious filler. The progressive disclosure could be improved by extracting the lengthy prompt templates and output format examples into referenced files.
Suggestions
Extract the sub-agent prompt templates and output format examples into a referenced file (e.g., JUDGMENT_DAY_TEMPLATES.md) to reduce the main skill's token footprint
Remove the decision tree OR the Pattern descriptions — they convey the same information twice; keep whichever is clearer (the decision tree is more scannable)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long (~200+ lines) and has some redundancy — the decision tree largely repeats what's already described in the patterns section. The sub-agent prompt templates are necessarily verbose but justified. Some sections like 'When to Use' include obvious bullets ('When a single reviewer might miss edge cases') that don't add value. Overall mostly efficient but could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable with complete, copy-paste-ready prompt templates for both judges and the fix agent, a concrete verdict table format, specific tool call references (delegate, delegation_read), and explicit classification logic (Confirmed/Suspect/Contradiction). The decision tree leaves no ambiguity about what to do at each step. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with a clear decision tree, explicit validation checkpoints (wait for both judges, synthesize before fixing), feedback loops (fix → re-judge → fix → re-judge → escalate), and a hard cap at 2 iterations with escalation. The sequence is unambiguous and includes error recovery paths. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is entirely self-contained in one file with no references to supplementary documents (except the skill-resolver which is an external dependency). The sub-agent prompt templates, output format examples, and escalation format could reasonably be split into referenced files to reduce the main skill's length. However, the internal organization with clear headers is decent. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- Gentleman-Programming/agent-teams-lite
- Commit
6901875
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.