judgment-day

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.

1. The diff / files / PR / architecture slice under review — the literal target the user named.
2. CLAUDE.md — repo conventions, Critical Rules, behavioral layer (the judges must score against these, not generic best-practice).
3. .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.
4. The change's spec / PR description / Jira ticket — the stated intent. Judges score against intent, not their imagined intent.
5. references/prompts-and-formats.md — judge prompts, fix prompts, warning rubric, verdict table format.
6. 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

1. Confirm target and optional custom criteria.
2. Resolve exact skill paths from registry or warn if missing.
3. Start Judge A and Judge B concurrently via delegation.
4. Synthesize findings into confirmed, suspect, contradiction, and INFO buckets.
5. Ask before Round 1 fixes; delegate a separate fix agent for confirmed approved fixes only.
6. Re-judge in parallel after fixes; repeat until approved, escalated, or user asks to stop.
7. 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

• references/prompts-and-formats.md — judge/fix prompts, warning rubric, verdict tables, and language snippets.