CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

judgment-day

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

59

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./internal/assets/skills/judgment-day/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 compact rules by target files/task, and inject the same Project Standards 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 compact project standards 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.
Repository
sergiodvillegas-art/gentle-ai
Last updated
Created

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.