judgment-day

name	judgment-day
description	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".
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"gentleman-programming","version":"1.4"}

When to Use

• User explicitly asks for "judgment day", "judgment-day", or equivalent trigger phrases
• After significant implementations before merging
• When high-confidence review of code, features, or architecture is needed
• When a single reviewer might miss edge cases or have blind spots
• When the cost of a production bug is higher than the cost of two review rounds

Critical Patterns

Pattern 0: Skill Resolution (BEFORE launching judges)

Follow the Skill Resolver Protocol (_shared/skill-resolver.md) before launching ANY sub-agent:

1. Obtain the skill registry: search engram (mem_search(query: "skill-registry", project: "{project}")) → fallback to .atl/skill-registry.md from the project root → skip if none
2. Identify the target files/scope — what code will the judges review?
3. Match relevant skills from the registry's Compact Rules by:
   • Code context: file extensions/paths of the target (e.g., .go → go-testing; .tsx → react-19, typescript)
   • Task context: "review code" → framework/language skills; "create PR" → branch-pr skill
4. Build a ## Project Standards (auto-resolved) block with the matching compact rules
5. Inject this block into BOTH Judge prompts AND the Fix Agent prompt (identical for all)

This ensures judges review against project-specific standards, not just generic best practices.

If no registry exists: warn the user ("No skill registry found — judges will review without project-specific standards. Run skill-registry to fix this.") and proceed with generic review only.

Pattern 1: Parallel Blind Review

• Launch TWO sub-agents via delegate (async, parallel — never sequential)
• Each agent receives the same target but works independently
• Neither agent knows about the other — no cross-contamination
• Both use identical review criteria but may find different issues
• NEVER do the review yourself as the orchestrator — your job is coordination only

Pattern 2: Verdict Synthesis

The orchestrator (NOT a sub-agent) compares results after both delegation_read calls return:

Confirmed   → found by BOTH agents          → high confidence, fix immediately
Suspect A   → found ONLY by Judge A         → needs triage
Suspect B   → found ONLY by Judge B         → needs triage
Contradiction → agents DISAGREE on the same thing → flag for manual decision

Present findings as a structured verdict table (see Output Format).

Pattern 3: Warning Classification

Judges MUST classify every WARNING into one of two sub-types:

WARNING (real)        → Causes a bug, data loss, security hole, or incorrect behavior
                        in a realistic production scenario. Fix required.
WARNING (theoretical) → Requires a contrived scenario, corrupted input, or conditions
                        that cannot arise through normal usage. Report but do NOT block.

How to classify: ask "Can a normal user, using the tool as intended, trigger this?" If YES → real. If it requires a malicious manifest, renamed home dir, two clicks in <1ms, or Windows volume root edge case → theoretical.

Theoretical warnings are reported as INFO in the verdict table. They are NOT fixed, do NOT trigger re-judgment, and do NOT count toward the convergence threshold. The orchestrator includes them in the final report for awareness.

Pattern 4: Fix and Re-judge

1. If confirmed CRITICALs or real WARNINGs exist → delegate a Fix Agent (separate delegation)
2. After Fix Agent completes → re-launch both judges in parallel (same blind protocol, fresh delegates)
3. After 2 fix iterations, if issues remain → present findings to user and ASK: "¿Querés que siga iterando? / Should I continue iterating?" If YES → continue fix+judge cycle. If NO → JUDGMENT: ESCALATED.
4. If both judges return clean → JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅

Pattern 5: Convergence Threshold

Round 1: Present the verdict table to the user. ASK: "These are the confirmed issues. Want me to fix them?" Only fix after user confirms. Then re-judge with full scope.

Round 2+: Only re-judge if there are confirmed CRITICALs. For anything else:

• Real WARNINGs (confirmed): Fix inline, do NOT re-launch judges. Report as "fixed without re-judge" in the verdict.
• Theoretical WARNINGs: Report as INFO. Do NOT fix, do NOT re-judge.
• SUGGESTIONs: Fix inline if trivial (dead code, style). Do NOT re-judge.

APPROVED criteria after Round 1: 0 confirmed CRITICALs + 0 confirmed real WARNINGs = APPROVED. Theoretical warnings and suggestions may remain.

This prevents the diminishing-returns cycle where each fix round introduces minor artifacts that trigger another round of nit-picking.

---

Decision Tree

User asks for "judgment day"
│
├── Target is specific files/feature/component?
│   ├── YES → continue
│   └── NO → ask user to specify scope before proceeding
│
▼
Resolve skills (Pattern 0): read registry → match by code + task context → build Project Standards block
▼
Launch Judge A + Judge B in parallel (delegate, async) — with Project Standards injected
▼
Wait for both to complete (delegation_read both)
▼
Synthesize verdict
│
├── No issues found?
│   └── JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅ (stop here)
│
├── Issues found (confirmed, suspect, or contradictions)?
│   └── Present verdict table to user
│       ▼
│       ASK: "¿Arreglo los issues confirmados? / Fix confirmed issues?"
│       ▼
│       ├── User says YES → Delegate Fix Agent with confirmed issues list
│       ├── User says NO → JUDGMENT: ESCALATED (user chose not to fix)
│       └── User gives specific feedback → adjust fix list accordingly
│       ▼
│       Wait for Fix Agent to complete
│       ▼
│       Re-launch Judge A + Judge B in parallel (Round 2)
│       ▼
│       Synthesize verdict
│       │
│       ├── Clean → JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅
│       │
│       └── Still issues → Delegate Fix Agent again (Round 3 / iteration 2)
│           ▼
│           Re-launch Judge A + Judge B in parallel (Round 3)
│           ▼
│           Synthesize verdict
│           │
│           ├── Clean → JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅
│           └── Still issues → ASK USER: "Issues remain after 2 iterations. Continue iterating?"
            │
            ├── User says YES → repeat fix + judge cycle (no limit)
            └── User says NO → JUDGMENT: ESCALATED ⚠️ (report to user)

---

Sub-Agent Prompt Templates

Judge Prompt (use for BOTH Judge A and Judge B — identical)

You are an adversarial code reviewer. Your ONLY job is to find problems.

## Target
{describe target: files, feature, architecture, component}

{if compact rules were resolved in Pattern 0, inject the following block — otherwise OMIT this entire section}
## Project Standards (auto-resolved)
{paste matching compact rules blocks from the skill registry}

## Review Criteria
- Correctness: Does the code do what it claims? Are there logical errors?
- Edge cases: What inputs or states aren't handled?
- Error handling: Are errors caught, propagated, and logged properly?
- Performance: Any N+1 queries, inefficient loops, unnecessary allocations?
- Security: Any injection risks, exposed secrets, improper auth checks?
- Naming & conventions: Does it follow the project's established patterns AND the Project Standards above?
{if user provided custom criteria, add here}

## Return Format
Return a structured list of findings ONLY. No praise, no approval.

Each finding:
- Severity: CRITICAL | WARNING (real) | WARNING (theoretical) | SUGGESTION
- File: path/to/file.ext (line N if applicable)
- Description: What is wrong and why it matters
- Suggested fix: one-line description of the fix (not code, just intent)

**WARNING classification rule**: Ask "Can a normal user, using the tool as intended, trigger this?"
- YES → `WARNING (real)` — e.g., silent error on disk full, data corruption on normal input
- NO → `WARNING (theoretical)` — e.g., requires malicious manifest, renamed home dir, race condition in <1ms, OS-specific edge case that doesn't apply to the project's target platforms

Always include at the end: **Skill Resolution**: {injected|fallback-registry|fallback-path|none} — {details}

If you find NO issues, return:
VERDICT: CLEAN — No issues found.

## Instructions
Be thorough and adversarial. Assume the code has bugs until proven otherwise.
Your job is to find problems, NOT to approve. Do not summarize. Do not praise.

Fix Agent Prompt

You are a surgical fix agent. You apply ONLY the confirmed issues listed below.

## Confirmed Issues to Fix
{paste the confirmed findings table from the verdict synthesis}

{if compact rules were resolved in Pattern 0, inject the following block — otherwise OMIT this entire section}
## Project Standards (auto-resolved)
{paste matching compact rules blocks from the skill registry}

## Context
- Original review criteria: {paste same criteria used for judges}
- Target: {same target description}

## Instructions
- Fix ONLY the confirmed issues listed above
- Do NOT refactor beyond what is strictly needed to fix each issue
- Do NOT change code that was not flagged
- **Scope rule**: If you fix a pattern in one file (e.g., add error logging for a silent discard), search for the SAME pattern in ALL other files touched by this change and fix them ALL. Inconsistent fixes across files are the #1 cause of unnecessary re-judge rounds.
- After each fix, note: file changed, line changed, what was done

Return a summary:
## Fixes Applied
- [file:line] — {what was fixed}

**Skill Resolution**: {injected|fallback-registry|fallback-path|none} — {details}

---

Output Format

## Judgment Day — {target}

### Round {N} — Verdict

| Finding | Judge A | Judge B | Severity | Status |
|---------|---------|---------|----------|--------|
| Missing null check in auth.go:42 | ✅ | ✅ | CRITICAL | Confirmed |
| Race condition in worker.go:88 | ✅ | ❌ | WARNING (real) | Suspect (A only) |
| Windows volume root edge case | ❌ | ✅ | WARNING (theoretical) | INFO — reported |
| Naming mismatch in handler.go:15 | ❌ | ✅ | SUGGESTION | Suspect (B only) |
| Error swallowed in db.go:201 | ✅ | ✅ | WARNING (real) | Confirmed |

**Confirmed issues**: 2 CRITICAL
**Suspect issues**: 1 WARNING, 1 SUGGESTION
**Contradictions**: none

### Fixes Applied (Round {N})
- `auth.go:42` — Added nil check before dereferencing user pointer
- `db.go:201` — Propagated error instead of silently returning nil

### Round {N+1} — Re-judgment
- Judge A: PASS ✅ — No issues found
- Judge B: PASS ✅ — No issues found

---

### JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅
Both judges pass clean. The target is cleared for merge.

Escalation Format (user chose to stop)

## Judgment Day — {target}

### JUDGMENT: ESCALATED ⚠️

User chose to stop after {N} fix iterations. Issues remain.
Manual review required before proceeding.

### Remaining Issues
| Finding | Judge A | Judge B | Severity |
|---------|---------|---------|----------|
| {description} | ✅ | ✅ | CRITICAL |

### History
- Round 1: {N} confirmed issues found
- Fix 1: applied {list}
- Round 2: {N} issues remain
- Fix 2: applied {list}
- Round 3: {N} issues remain → escalated

Recommend: human review of the remaining issues above before re-running judgment day.

---

Skill Resolution Feedback

After every delegation that returns a result, check the **Skill Resolution** field in each judge/fix-agent response:

• injected → skills were passed correctly ✅
• fallback-registry, fallback-path, or none → skill cache was lost (likely compaction). Re-read the registry immediately and inject compact rules in all subsequent delegations.

This is a self-correction mechanism. Do NOT ignore fallback reports.

---

Language

• Spanish input → Rioplatense: "Juicio iniciado", "Los jueces están trabajando en paralelo...", "Los jueces coinciden", "Juicio terminado — Aprobado", "Escalado — necesita revisión humana"
• English input: "Judgment initiated", "Both judges are working in parallel...", "Both judges agree", "Judgment complete — Approved", "Escalated — requires human review"

---

Blocking Rules (MANDATORY — override all other instructions)

These rules cannot be skipped, overridden, or deprioritized under any circumstances:

1. MUST NOT declare JUDGMENT: APPROVED until: Round 1 judges return CLEAN, OR Round 2 judges confirm 0 CRITICALs + 0 confirmed real WARNINGs (theoretical warnings and suggestions may remain)
2. MUST NOT run git push, git commit, or any code-modifying action after fixes until re-judgment completes
3. MUST NOT save a session summary or tell the user "done" until every JD reaches a terminal state (APPROVED or ESCALATED)
4. After the Fix Agent returns, your IMMEDIATE next action is re-launching judges in parallel for re-judgment. Do NOT push or commit before re-judgment completes.
5. When running multiple JDs in parallel, each JD is independent. One JD completing does NOT allow skipping rounds on another.

---

Self-Check (before ANY terminal action)

Before pushing, committing, summarizing, or telling the user "done":

1. List every active JD target
2. For each: is it in state APPROVED or ESCALATED?
3. If ANY JD had fixes applied, did Round 2 run?
4. If Round 2 found issues, did you ASK the user whether to continue? Did you respect their answer?

If ANY answer is "no" → you skipped a step. Go back and complete it before proceeding.

---

Rules

• The orchestrator NEVER reviews code itself — it only launches judges, reads results, and synthesizes
• Judges MUST be launched as delegate (async) so they run in parallel
• The Fix Agent is a separate delegation — never use one of the judges as the fixer
• If user provides custom review criteria, include them in BOTH judge prompts (identical)
• If target scope is unclear, stop and ask before launching — partial reviews are useless
• After 2 fix iterations, ASK the user before continuing. Never escalate automatically — the user decides when to stop.
• Always wait for BOTH judges to complete before synthesizing — never accept a partial verdict
• Suspect findings (only one judge) are reported but NOT automatically fixed — triage and escalate to user if needed

---

Commands

# No CLI commands — this is a pure orchestration protocol.
# Execution happens via delegate() and delegation_read() tool calls.