| name | judgment-day |
| description | Trigger: judgment day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run blind dual review, fix confirmed issues, then re-judge. |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| complementary_categories | ["meta-skill"] |
| metadata | {"author":"gentleman-programming","version":"1.4","vendored_from":"https://github.com/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai"} |
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.
Within this QA boilerplate, this skill is cited as an OPTIONAL adversarial augmentation by:
/test-automation — Review phase for high-risk test changes/git-flow-master — pre-PR gate when the diff is large or touches shared fixtures / base classes/framework-development — pre-archive review of framework evolution diffs
It is never invoked automatically. Users opt in via explicit trigger.
Inputs — read these first, in this order
Canonical reading order for any AI starting cold on a Judgment Day review. Read in order; stop earlier when the target is small enough that later inputs add no signal.
- The diff / files / PR / architecture slice under review — the literal target the user named.
CLAUDE.md — repo conventions, Critical Rules, behavioral layer (the judges must score against these, not generic best-practice)..claude/skills/REGISTRY.md — skill registry; resolve which project skills apply to the target's file paths + task type, and inject the same Skills to load before work block into both judge prompts.- The change's spec / PR description / Jira ticket — the stated intent. Judges score against intent, not their imagined intent.
references/prompts-and-formats.md — judge prompts, fix prompts, warning rubric, verdict table format.- Prior judge outputs from earlier rounds (Round 2+ only) — to detect regressions or stale findings vs. new ones.
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 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
| 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 Judge A and Judge B concurrently via delegation.
- Synthesize findings into confirmed, suspect, contradiction, and INFO buckets.
- Ask before Round 1 fixes; delegate a separate fix agent for confirmed approved fixes only.
- Re-judge in parallel after fixes; 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, re-judgment result, Skill Resolution, and final JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅ or JUDGMENT: ESCALATED ⚠️.
Anti-patterns — NEVER do these
- J1. NEVER let the two judges see each other's verdicts before synthesis — blind review is the entire value proposition; cross-contamination collapses two judges into one.
- J2. NEVER skip the re-judge step after fixes — fixes can regress other behavior; only a fresh dual verdict confirms the change actually landed clean.
- J3. NEVER run judgment-day on a diff with > 30 files in a single pass — signal degrades past that size. Split into focused per-area reviews and synthesize manually.
- J4. NEVER override a judge's reject without documenting WHY in the synthesis — silent overrides destroy the audit trail and the next reviewer cannot tell if the issue was triaged or missed.
- J5. NEVER use judgment-day for trivial typo / format-only / autogenerated diffs — orchestration overhead (two judge agents + synthesis + re-judge loop) exceeds the value of the verdict.
- J6. NEVER feed judges different prompts, different criteria, or different context — the blindness only works if both judges see the identical brief. Asymmetric briefs produce asymmetric verdicts that look like real disagreement but are artifacts.
References
