Independent LLM judge evaluates task completion separately from the executing agent, catching false success claims by reviewing task goal, actions taken, final state, and evidence. Produces PASS/FAIL with confidence score and reasoning.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Independent LLM judge evaluates task completion separately from the executing agent, catching false success claims by reviewing task goal, actions taken, final state, and evidence. Produces PASS/FAIL with confidence score and reasoning.
An independent LLM evaluation layer that verifies whether a task was genuinely completed.
The judge reviews the original task goal, the sequence of actions taken, the final state of
relevant artifacts, and the claimed completion evidence — then produces a PASS/FAIL verdict
with a confidence score and actionable reasoning.
This skill is distinct from verification-before-completion: that skill runs checklist gates
within the same agent context. Judge-verification uses a fresh, independent perspective
with no access to the executing agent's prior reasoning, catching hallucinated success claims.
When to Use
Skill({ skill: 'judge-verification' });
Invoke when:
Task claims completion but no test output, diff, or artifact is visible
High-stakes tasks (security fixes, data migrations, API changes) require independent sign-off
An agent's completion metadata seems inconsistent with the work described
The verification-before-completion skill passes but human review is not available
JUDGE IS INDEPENDENT — NO SHARED CONTEXT WITH EXECUTING AGENT
The judge must receive only: (1) the original task goal, (2) the list of actions, (3) the
final file states. Never pass the executing agent's reasoning or internal notes to the judge.
Judge Evaluation Framework
The judge reviews four dimensions and produces a combined verdict:
Dimension 1: Task Goal Alignment
Question: Does the final state match what the task requested?
Evidence to check:
Original task subject/description from TaskGet({ taskId })
Files or outputs explicitly mentioned in the task
Expected behavior described in the task goal
Score: 0-25 points
Commands:
# Get the original task goal# (replace task-ID with actual task ID)
node -e "const fs=require('fs');const tasks=JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('.claude/context/runtime/tasks.json','utf8')||'[]');const t=tasks.find(x=>x.id==='{{TASK_ID}}');console.log(JSON.stringify(t?.subject||'not found'));"
Expected output: Task subject string showing the original goal.
Verify: Subject matches what the agent claimed to accomplish.
Dimension 2: Action Completeness
Question: Were the claimed actions sufficient to accomplish the goal?
Evidence to check:
List of tool calls from task metadata (filesModified, outputArtifacts)
Were necessary tools invoked? (e.g., Write for file creation, Bash for command execution)
Are there obvious gaps? (e.g., claimed to run tests but no Bash call with pnpm test)
Score: 0-25 points
Commands:
# Check files modified were actually touched
git diff --name-only HEAD~1 HEAD 2>/dev/null || git status --short
Expected output: List of changed files that should match the agent's filesModified metadata.
Verify: At least one file changed; file list is plausible given the task.
Dimension 3: Evidence of Completion
Question: Is there concrete, verifiable evidence the task succeeded?
Evidence to check:
Test results (exit code 0, pass counts)
File contents reflect the requested change
No error output in last bash call
Build/lint passes
Score: 0-25 points
Commands:
# Check if tests pass (if task involved code changes)cd /c/dev/projects/agent-studio && pnpm test 2>&1 | tail -5
Expected output: Test summary showing pass/fail counts.
Verify: Zero failures for tasks that touched tested code.
# Verify target file content matches task intent# (judge reads the file and checks against task description)head -50 {{TARGET_FILE_PATH}}
Expected output: File content consistent with the claimed change.
Verify: Content is not placeholder/stub; change is real.
Dimension 4: Final State Coherence
Question: Is the system in a coherent state — no regressions, no broken references?
Evidence to check:
Lint and format pass
No new TODO/FIXME introduced without justification
Expected output: Zero errors, possibly auto-fix count.
Verify: Exit code 0 or only style fixes (no logic errors).
Verdict Calculation
totalScore = dim1 + dim2 + dim3 + dim4 (max 100)
PASS: totalScore >= 70 AND dim3 >= 15 (evidence gate — cannot pass with no evidence)
FAIL: totalScore < 70 OR dim3 < 15
CONDITIONAL: totalScore 60-69 with dim3 >= 15 — requires human review
Output Format
The judge produces a structured verdict:
{"verdict":"PASS | FAIL | CONDITIONAL","confidence":0.87,"totalScore":82,"dimensions":{"goalAlignment":20,"actionCompleteness":22,"evidenceOfCompletion":20,"finalStateCoherence":20},"reasoning":"Task goal was to add input validation. Files modified include auth.ts and auth.test.ts. Tests pass. Validation logic present in auth.ts lines 45-67. No regressions detected.","failureReasons":[],"recommendations":["Consider adding edge case tests for empty string input"]}
Expected output: TaskUpdate succeeds with judge verdict in metadata.
Verify:TaskGet({ taskId }) returns metadata.judgeVerdict.verdict.
FAIL Handling
When verdict is FAIL:
Do NOT mark the task complete
Write failure reasons to issues.md
Notify the originating agent or Router with the specific failure reasons
Suggest concrete remediation steps based on which dimension failed
CONDITIONAL Handling
When verdict is CONDITIONAL:
Mark task as blocked with blockerType: 'review'
Output: "Judge verdict CONDITIONAL (score {{N}}/100). Human review required before marking complete."
List specific gaps that prevented PASS
Integration with verification-before-completion
This skill is complementary to verification-before-completion, not a replacement:
Skill
Perspective
When
Catches
verification-before-completion
Same agent
Before claiming done
Missing steps in agent's own context
judge-verification
Independent
After claiming done
False success, hallucinated evidence
Use both: verification-before-completion first, then judge-verification for sign-off.
Enforcement Hooks
Input validated against schemas/input.schema.json before execution.
Output contract defined in schemas/output.schema.json.
Pre-execute hook at hooks/pre-execute.cjs validates that taskId and taskGoal are provided.
Post-execute hook at hooks/post-execute.cjs emits a judge-verification event to tool-events.jsonl.
Anti-Patterns
Never share the executing agent's internal reasoning with the judge
Never accept a PASS verdict without a non-zero dim3 score (evidence gate is mandatory)
Never judge a task that hasn't called TaskUpdate(completed) yet — wait for the completion claim
Never skip this skill for security-sensitive tasks, even when other verification passes
Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)
Before starting: Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md for past judge verdicts and common failure patterns.
After completing: If verdict is FAIL or CONDITIONAL, append to .claude/context/memory/issues.md:
