# Appeal > Review a standing verdict as a second panel, admitting new counters and evidence the first pass missed, then re-run and report what changed. Use when the user disputes a verdict, says it was too harsh or too generous, asks to appeal, asks for a second opinion on an analysis, or says the judge got it wrong. - Skill: `damionrashford/appeal` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add damionrashford/appeal` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/damionrashford/appeal/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: damionrashford (https://skillmd.com/u/damionrashford) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/damionrashford/appeal --- # Appeal (Second Panel) **Context:** $ARGUMENTS The Roman Rota does not let the panel that issued a ruling hear its own appeal. This skill is the second panel: it reviews the standing verdict on the record, admits what the first pass missed, and re-runs. It is not a rubber stamp and it is not a reversal engine — most appeals should confirm. Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/roman-rota.md` and `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/argument-semantics.md`. ## Workflow ### 1. Read the record, then seal it Never re-argue from the conversation. Appeal from the graph. ```bash bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" verdict bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" transcript bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" lock --agent judge ``` `lock` seals the record: the engine will refuse `reset` and refuse edits to prior testimony until `unlock`. This is enforced, not a convention — a sealed entity cannot gain observations, so the history the appeal rules on cannot be rewritten underneath it. New nodes and new relations remain allowed; that is the appeal. If the graph is empty there is nothing to appeal — say so and stop. ### 2. Find the appealable error A verdict is only overturned on a defect in the record, not on disagreement with the conclusion. Look for exactly these: | Ground | What it looks like in the graph | | :--- | :--- | | **Undefended claim** | a claim went `OUT` and no counter was ever registered against its attacker | | **Unattacked attacker** | a weakness is `IN` only because nobody tested it | | **Missing evidence** | a claim is `needs_more_work` as unsupported, but support exists and was never registered | | **Ungrounded assumption** | a claim was demoted for resting on an assumption that evidence could ground | | **Circular reasoning** | `circular_reasoning` is non-empty and the verdict ignored it | If none of these hold, the appeal fails. Report the verdict as confirmed and stop. **Confirming is the expected outcome** — an appeal court that reverses everything is not a court. ### 3. Enter new material Register what the first pass missed, attributed to the role whose case it serves. Add only material you can actually defend: ```bash bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" add "" counter --obs "" --agent advocate bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" relate "" undermines "" --agent advocate bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" add "" evidence --obs "" --agent advocate bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" relate "" supports "" --agent advocate ``` An appeal can also go against the original appellant — if the first pass let a claim through unchallenged, attack it now: ```bash bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" add "" weakness --obs "" --agent adversary bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" relate "" undermines "" --agent adversary ``` ### 4. Re-run, diff, and unseal ```bash bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" verdict bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" unlock --agent judge ``` Compare against the verdict from step 1 and report **what moved and why**, in terms of the graph: > `cost-reduction` moved from `does_not_survive` to `survives_scrutiny`: > `multi-cloud-abstraction` was entered against `vendor-lockin`, which is now > `OUT`, so its attack no longer counts. ## Output format 1. **Standing verdict** — what the first pass concluded 2. **Ground for appeal** — which defect above, or none 3. **New material** — what was entered, and by which role 4. **Revised verdict** — the re-run result 5. **What moved** — each change, traced to the node that caused it 6. **What stands** — everything the appeal confirmed If nothing moved, say so plainly. "The appeal is dismissed; the verdict stands" is a complete and legitimate result. ## Rules - Appeal from the record. If it is not in the graph, it is not before the court. - The record is sealed by `lock` — the engine refuses `reset` and refuses edits to prior testimony while the appeal runs. Do not work around it with `DA_FORCE_RESET`; that discards the case. `unlock` when the ruling is delivered. - Do not reverse on preference. Name the structural defect or confirm. - Attribute new material to the role it serves, so the transcript stays honest about who argued what. ## Resources - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/roman-rota.md` — load always. Mandatory opposition, and why appeals go to a different panel. - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/argument-semantics.md` — load always. How labels are computed, so "what moved" can be explained mechanically. - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/lawsuits-against-the-devil.md` — load when the verdict was dismissive rather than reasoned. - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts` — `verdict` and `transcript` to read the record, `add` and `relate` to enter new material.