| name | judgment-day |
| description | Trigger: judgment day, judgement day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run blind dual review, fix confirmed issues, then re-judge. |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| metadata | {"author":"iperez","version":"1.4"} |
Activation Contract
Load this skill only when the user explicitly asks for Judgment Day, Judgement 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 independent OpenCode
reviewer Task calls concurrently with identical target and criteria but distinct Judge A and Judge B role prompts; keep the reviews blind and 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 the OpenCode
worker Task applies approved fixes, immediately re-launch both reviewer Tasks concurrently 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
| Condition | Action |
|---|
| Target unclear | Ask for scope; do not launch judges. |
| No skill registry | Warn, proceed with generic criteria, and record Skill Resolution: none. |
| Both judges find same CRITICAL/real WARNING | Confirmed; ask/fix according to round rules. |
| One judge finds issue | Suspect; report and triage, do not auto-fix. |
| Judges contradict | Escalate for manual decision. |
| Round 2+ has only theoretical warnings/suggestions | Report as INFO; do not re-judge. |
Execution Steps
- Confirm target and optional custom criteria.
- Resolve exact skill paths from registry or warn if missing.
- Start two independent
Task(subagent_type="reviewer", prompt="...") calls concurrently with distinct Judge A and Judge B role prompts; each runs the exhaustive first pass without seeing the other review and emits its own findings ledger.
- Synthesize findings into confirmed, suspect, contradiction, and INFO buckets; merge both judges' ledger rows into the persisted ledger and persist per the artifact-store branch.
- Ask before Round 1 fixes; launch one
Task(subagent_type="worker", prompt="...") call for confirmed approved fixes only. The worker reads the persisted ledger, applies only confirmed fixes, and sets addressed ledger ids to fixed.
- Re-judge in parallel after fixes, scoped to the persisted ledger and the fix diff per the Scoped re-review contract; repeat until approved, escalated, or user asks to stop.
- 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, ledger persistence location, re-judgment result, Skill Resolution, and final JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅ or JUDGMENT: ESCALATED ⚠️.
Ledger and Re-Judge Contract
Sweep budget. Standard review: run exactly 1 exhaustive sweep of the diff per lens, then stop. Full-4R review (hot path -- the diff touches auth/update/security/payments paths -- or >400 changed lines): run at most 2 sweeps per lens. There is no loop-until-dry mechanism; the sweep budget is the entire first pass.
Findings ledger. Emit a findings ledger with this schema for every entry:
| Field | Values |
|---|
id | {LENS}-{NNN} (e.g. R1-001) |
lens | risk | readability | reliability | resilience | judgment-day |
location | path/to/file.ext:line or :start-end |
severity | BLOCKER | CRITICAL | WARNING | SUGGESTION |
status | open | fixed | verified | wont-fix | info |
evidence | why it matters |
If the first pass finds nothing, persist an empty ledger record rather than skip persistence.
Ledger persistence honors the artifact store.
openspec: write openspec/changes/{change-name}/review-ledger.md.engram: upsert topic sdd/{change-name}/review-ledger (ad-hoc judgment-day without a change: review/{target-slug}/ledger, where target-slug = pr-{number} when reviewing a PR, else the current branch name kebab-cased, else a kebab-case slug of the user-stated review target).none: keep the ledger inline in the response; do not write files or Engram artifacts — the ledger lives only in this conversation; complete the review → fix → re-review loop within the session because it is not persisted across compaction.
Frozen re-judgment boundary. Freeze the original corroborated BLOCKER/CRITICAL IDs, initial path set, acceptance criteria, and required regression evidence before correction. The worker may address only those IDs and paths. Re-judgment receives the frozen ledger and fix diff, verifies those IDs, the original criteria/tests, and correction regression evidence, and does not conduct general defect discovery or reopen unrelated defects. New observations are non-blocking follow-ups; a failed original criterion escalates the existing judgment.
Execution mode. Judgment Day uses OpenCode Task calls with the configured generic sub-agent types: two concurrent, independent reviewer calls for Judge A and Judge B, followed after user approval by one worker call for confirmed fixes. The reviewers emit their own ledger rows and hand them to the orchestrator, which merges both reviewers' rows into the persisted ledger.
References
