Menu
Resolve ambiguous triage outcomes in the middle confidence band.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Orchestration skill: chains the full ADLC Build Loop. PRD → Brief → Council → Scaffold → Codegen → LDD → TDD → Council → PR. Use when implementing a new feature end-to-end.
Generate a bounded, schema-valid goal prompt from one validated Build Brief task for zero-context external execution.
Applicability-aware Definition of Done checklist. Core checks apply to every task; overlay checks activate only when the applicability manifest says the surface exists. Binary verification — pass or fail. Triggers at Phase 4 completion and Phase 5 entry.
Score whether each task is specific enough for autonomous, one-shot, production-ready execution.
Reviews code changes for understanding, blast radius, state, secrets, assumptions, and explainability. Produces a blocking comprehension artifact when implications are unclear.
Self-improving skill system. Captures diffs between agent output and human edits, distills patterns into rules, writes them back to skill files. Makes Build and Fix loops better over time.
| name | brief-clarity-judge |
| description | Resolve ambiguous triage outcomes in the middle confidence band. |
| contract_version | 1.0.0 |
| side_effect_profile | read_only |
| activation | {"mode":"judgement","consumes_manifest":true,"model_class":"fast_judge","cost_guard":{"max_tokens_per_call":700,"expected_calls_per_run":1}} |
Use this judge when 0.6 <= task_classification_confidence < 0.8, when epistemic_ledger contains architecture-affecting UNKNOWN entries, or when bin/adlc clarity-gate emits pending questions.
The confidence band is advisory. This judge decides whether the brief is clear enough to continue or should escalate for human clarification.
{
"request": "string",
"signal_features": {
"language_hints": ["py"],
"intent_keywords": ["fix", "bug"],
"linked_refs": ["PR-123"],
"reproducer_present": true
},
"task_classification": "bugfix",
"task_classification_confidence": 0.72,
"classification_evidence": ["..."],
"epistemic_ledger": {},
"pending_questions": [],
"contamination": {},
"missing": ["..."]
}
{
"verdict": "proceed | escalate",
"rationale": "string",
"pending_questions": [
{
"ledger_entry_id": "L-1",
"question": "string",
"why_it_matters": "string",
"what_changes": "string",
"conservative_default": "string"
}
]
}
proceed when the task has a concrete objective, bounded scope, and a plausible verifier path.escalate when the task is internally contradictory, underspecified, or missing the information needed to classify safely.escalate when an ask-user ledger entry lacks a recorded human answer or when pending questions would change architecture, compatibility, or task boundaries.escalate when a proof, demonstration, slice, or end-to-end criterion lacks a substance floor; unstated proof magnitude is an architecture-affecting unknown.ask-user unknown into an assumption; only a human answer or signed accepted risk resolves it.