judgment-day

name	judgment-day
description	Trigger: judgment day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run explicit blind dual review with at most two scoped fix/re-judgment rounds.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"gentleman-programming","adapted-by":"Juan Carlos Cadavid — jcadavid.com","adapted-for":"AKILI-SPECS","binding":"core","version":"1.7"}

Activation Contract

Load only when the user explicitly requests Judgment Day or equivalent dual/adversarial review for a concrete target. Judgment Day replaces ordinary 4R for that target; never run both.

Hard Rules

• Resolve matching project skills before starting and pass the same paths to both judges and any fix actor.
• Build one complete immutable target, then launch two blind read-only judges in parallel with identical scope and criteria.
• Each judge returns one neutral findings result and terminates. Wait for both; never accept a partial judgment.
• Never launch review-refuter; two-judge agreement is the corroboration mechanism.
• Only the parent orchestrator merges/persists findings, launches the fix actor, launches scoped re-judgment, and updates native counters.
• Fix only severe findings confirmed by both judges. WARNING/SUGGESTION rows remain info.
• Judges must contrast every count, total, and quantity the target asserts against the prose of the other in-scope documents. Documents agreeing with each other is not corroboration — it is often one wrong idea copied forward; a figure contradicted by any in-scope document's own prose is a finding.
• Permit at most two fix rounds and two scoped re-judgments. Re-judgment sees only the frozen ledger plus fix delta and may record fix-caused defects.
• Terminal transaction states are only approved | escalated; never reset or extend an exhausted lineage.

Decision Gates

Condition	Action
Target unclear	Ask one scope question and stop.
Both judges confirm severe finding	Ask before round-one correction; then use the bounded fix actor.
One judge reports it	Record suspect; do not auto-fix.
Judges contradict	Escalate for explicit human decision.
Scoped re-judgment fails before round two	Parent may launch the final bounded fix round.
Any issue remains after round two	Escalate and stop.

Execution Steps

1. Start review/start(target, mode=judgment_day) and persist the transaction.
2. Launch both read-only judges against the same immutable target.
3. Merge findings into the frozen ledger and persist it through the selected artifact store.
4. Ask before round-one correction; run the fix actor only for confirmed severe IDs.
5. Run both judges again only over the frozen ledger plus immutable fix delta.
6. Repeat once at most, then run independent final verification and emit the terminal receipt.

Output Contract

Return target identity, round, confirmed/suspect/contradiction/INFO counts, correction work units, scoped re-judgment result, artifact references, skill resolution, and exactly one final JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅ or JUDGMENT: ESCALATED ⚠️.

References

• ../_shared/review-ledger-contract.md — canonical transaction, ledger, persistence, and lifecycle contract.
• references/prompts-and-formats.md — compact judge/fix prompts and verdict shape.

These reference files are not packaged with AKILI-SPECS. When they are unavailable, proceed with the contract described in this document alone: persist the findings ledger inside the spec folder (see below) and derive judge prompts from the Hard Rules and Output Contract.

AKILI-SPECS Integration

AKILI moment	How to use this skill
/akili-specify Step 2.3 — Review Design option	The user-selected blind dual review of design.md before tasks are written; the target is the approved requirements + draft design
/akili-archive Kaizen Measure	Severe confirmed findings from Judgment Day runs are a signal row in the kaizen retrospective

Adaptation rules:

• Persist the findings ledger as docs/specs/<spec-path>/judgment.md so /akili-archive can read it as evidence.
• The two-judge blind protocol, the two-round fix ceiling, and the APPROVED/ESCALATED terminal states apply unchanged.
• Prefer running the two judges on a model different from the one that authored the design (author ≠ auditor, per AKILI model routing).