aussiegingersnap Judge
Quality review and evaluation skill that verifies completed work against defined criteria. Part of the two-tier multi-agent architecture where Judge evaluates worker output.
Contract
Inputs:
- Completed work output (files, changes, artifacts)
- Original acceptance criteria or success criteria
- Context about what was attempted
Outputs:
- Pass/fail determination
- List of issues found (if any)
- Recommendations for fixes (if failing)
Success Criteria:
- All acceptance criteria evaluated
- Clear pass/fail determination provided
- Actionable feedback given for any failures
When to Use
Invoke the judge skill:
- After atomic skill completion - Before marking work as done
- Before committing - Final quality gate
- After build/test phases - Verify implementation meets spec
- When reviewing generated code - Catch issues before integration
When NOT to Use
Skip the judge skill for:
- Trivial changes - Single-line fixes, typo corrections
- Mid-workflow - Don't interrupt atomic skills; judge at phase boundaries
- Exploratory work - When user is iterating quickly and explicitly skipping review
- User-requested skip - When user says "just do it" or "skip review"
Review Process
Step 1: Gather Context
Collect the materials needed for review:
- The output - What was produced (files, code, documents)
- The criteria - What was supposed to be achieved (acceptance criteria, spec)
- The scope - What was in/out of scope for this work
Step 2: Evaluate Against Criteria
For each acceptance criterion:
- Check if the criterion is met
- Note any partial completion
- Document evidence (file paths, line numbers, test results)
Use this evaluation format:
## Review: [Work Description]
### Criteria Evaluation
| Criterion | Status | Evidence |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| [Criterion 1] | PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL | [Evidence] |
| [Criterion 2] | PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL | [Evidence] |
### Issues Found
1. [Issue description]
- **Severity**: Critical/Major/Minor
- **Location**: [File/line]
- **Fix**: [Recommended action]
### Verdict
**PASS** / **FAIL** / **PASS WITH NOTES**
[Summary of decision]
Step 3: Apply Review Dimensions
Evaluate across these dimensions based on work type:
For Code Changes
| Dimension | Check |
|---|---|
| Correctness | Does it do what was specified? |
| Completeness | Are all criteria addressed? |
| Quality | No obvious bugs, edge cases handled? |
| Style | Follows project conventions? |
| Scope | No scope creep beyond criteria? |
For Document Generation
| Dimension | Check |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | Information is correct? |
| Completeness | All required sections present? |
| Format | Follows expected structure? |
| Clarity | Understandable to target audience? |
For Infrastructure Changes
| Dimension | Check |
|---|---|
| Functionality | Works as expected? |
| Security | No exposed secrets, proper permissions? |
| Idempotency | Can be run again safely? |
| Documentation | Changes documented? |
Severity Levels
| Level | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Blocks functionality, security issue, data loss risk | Must fix before proceeding |
| Major | Significant deviation from spec, poor UX | Should fix before commit |
| Minor | Style issues, minor improvements | Can note for future |
Verdicts
PASS
All criteria met, no critical/major issues. Work can proceed.
FAIL
Critical issues found OR acceptance criteria not met. Work must be revised.
Provide:
- Specific issues with locations
- Recommended fixes
- Which criteria failed
PASS WITH NOTES
All criteria met, but minor issues noted. Work can proceed with awareness of noted items.
Integration with Orchestrators
When used in orchestrated workflows:
- Orchestrator invokes atomic skill - Work is produced
- Orchestrator invokes judge - Work is evaluated
- If PASS - Proceed to next phase
- If FAIL - Return to previous skill with feedback
This creates the planner/worker/judge pattern that scales.
Quick Review Checklist
For rapid reviews, use this checklist:
## Quick Review
- [ ] All acceptance criteria addressed
- [ ] No obvious bugs or errors
- [ ] Follows project conventions
- [ ] No scope creep
- [ ] Ready to commit/proceed
**Verdict**: PASS / FAIL
References
See references/review-criteria.md for detailed review criteria by skill type.