Results for “verdict”

Delivers a daily DeFi regime verdict (RISK-ON/NEUTRAL/RISK-OFF) from five named inputs, top TVL movers with causal reasoning, and a sustainable-vs-incentive yield split to distinguish real product-market fit from emissions-pumped APY.

Runs throwaway experiments to validate feasibility before building, producing a verdict with evidence.

Validates generated SRS documents against IEEE 830-1998, fixes errors, and reports compliance verdict.

Structured code quality assessment with Conventional Comments format, scaled review depth, and soft-gating verdicts preserving user autonomy.

Drafts a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) under FRCP 50(b) or state equivalents, with alternative new-trial request. Builds element-by-element evidentiary insufficiency arguments using transcript citations and preserves the appellate record. Use when drafting JNOV motions, post-trial motions, renewed judgment as a matter of law, or challenging jury verdicts for insufficient evidence.

Composite skill — take a PR from "I think it's ready" to merged with full gate verification. Chains pr-merge-readiness (verdict) → ci-watch / gh-fix-ci (if blockers) → gh-address-comments (if review needed) → ship (when verdict is MERGE). Use as the one-call answer to "can I merge this?" instead of running 4 skills sequentially.

Convenes a multi-persona council of historical thinkers to deliberate on complex problems and synthesize a verdict.

Read artifacts from the shared bench — the workspace where desks leave findings, verdicts, and work products for each other and the operator.

Triage an incoming commercial document, route it to the right review skill, run a first-pass red-flag scan, and produce a consolidated verdict.

Multi-dimensional lead qualification scoring. Evaluates leads against BANT criteria, firmographic fit, behavioral signals, and intent indicators. Outputs qualified/disqualified verdict with detailed reasoning.

Scans a DICOM series folder to extract header metadata and produce a preflight verdict without decoding pixel data.

Judges agent outputs against LaRuche's quality standards, returning a structured scorecard with scores, verdict, and actionable corrections.

`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: use for component, route, browser, accessibility, and API-backed UI-state tests; skip backend, portfolio, and release-verdict work.

`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: use for database, broker, cache, HTTP, framework, process, or transaction seam proof; skip local, portfolio, and release-verdict work.

Reviews all uncommitted changes in the current Git repository and produces a structured code review report with findings and a verdict.

`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: use to recommend a risk-to-test evidence portfolio and omissions; skip test implementation, fixed-command, and release-verdict work.

Cross-stack source code asset audit — classifies every file, detects embedded third-party libraries, and delivers actionable four-level verdicts per module with interactive HTML reports.

Analyse experiment results, run validity checks (SRM, exposure parity, data integrity, novelty/primacy), interpret causally, make a ship/iterate/kill decision against the pre-declared rule, and append to cumulative learnings. Forces honest readouts — strips significance claims from underpowered or peek-violating tests; never lets directional results masquerade as causal wins. Load when results exist, or when the user says "read out this experiment", "analyse the test", "did the test win", "interpret the results", "what did we learn", "ship or kill", or when the experimentation orchestrator routes here.

Reconcile canonical declarative documents under docs/ with verified implementation discoveries after a FULLY_IMPLEMENTED moonspec-verify verdict. Use when an orchestration run must decide whether verified discoveries show the owning canonical document is impossible, unclear, or inconsistent, apply the smallest correct doc update, or escalate ambiguous authority conflicts and deliberate divergences instead of editing.

Audits Vercel projects for cost and performance optimization by collecting metrics, scanning code, and producing ranked recommendations grounded in data.

Compare, cross-review, and merge competing plans from multiple agents into one executable direction with a clear handoff.

Cross-stack source code asset audit — classifies every file, detects embedded third-party libraries, and delivers actionable four-level verdicts per module with interactive HTML reports.

Record a decision: finalized → ADR (optionally rule + guide or spec + plan); open proposal → RFC. Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'make it a standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y'. Not for feature planning or documenting existing code.

Verify fix commits address audit findings without new bugs

Give a decisive, project-grounded point of view in the subject's own shape: a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set. Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion, a named-peer cross-check, any request to consult other models or reconcile their opinions, an `oracle` panel, or a correction-cost-gated proactive cross-check offer. Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm).

Decide

实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

Scores an inbound message on budget, fit, and intent, then recommends whether to call, nurture, or skip the lead.

選択肢(A/B/C)の深掘り比較→淘汰→推奨で判断負担を下げ判断の質を上げるスキル。5段階（L1固定3点/L1.5案拡張Diverge・自動/L2評価軸マトリクス/L3複数LLM弁証論/L4過去判断照合）。 「比較して」「深掘りして」「メリデメ教えて」「お勧めは？」「徹底的に」「過去の判断と照合」「前にどう決めたっけ」「/sentaku」等で発火。teian(浅)の深掘り要求を受け取り、brainstorming(深:設計全体)と棲み分け。

Perform a non-destructive post-implementation verification gate validating the implementation against spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md, and constitution.md.