# Judge Proposal > Judge proposed approaches from a task artifact or an explicitly supplied standalone proposal and cited evidence. Scores options against hard gates and ETHOS, respects selection and writeback authority, and returns a decision or ASK_USER with one focused question. Does not implement anything. - Skill: `iamhenry/judge-proposal` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add iamhenry/judge-proposal` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/iamhenry/judge-proposal/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Productivity - Author: iamhenry (https://skillmd.com/u/iamhenry) - Updated: 2026-09-10 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/iamhenry/judge-proposal --- # Judge Proposal Review proposed approaches in a fresh session, separate from their author. Be lean, rubric-based, evidence-based, and implementation-free. One supported approach needs no invented competitors; scale review depth to uncertainty and consequence, not option count. Selection authority must come from the caller; if reserved to the user, return ASK_USER with a recommendation and the selection question, not SELECTED. ## Inputs For pipeline calls, require: - `{ISSUE_DIR}/issue.md` - Cited evidence inline in `issue.md` or linked `{ISSUE_DIR}/research/*.md` For an explicitly standalone review, accept equivalent supplied problem/proposal, candidate approaches, constraints, acceptance criteria, and cited evidence directly or by existing artifact paths. No `ISSUE_DIR` or fabricated task documents are required. References to `issue.md` below mean those supplied proposal inputs for standalone review. A pipeline input gap is not permission to silently switch to standalone review. Optional guidance: `_ai/docs/ETHOS.md`. Artifact contract: - `issue.md` contains the problem, acceptance criteria, constraints, and candidate approaches. - `ISSUE_DIR` is the artifact directory created by `gather-context` for the current pipeline run. - Inline citations or linked `research/*.md` contain codebase/product/external evidence; separate reports are not required for compact research. - `ETHOS.md` supplies decision principles: tracer bullet first, reuse existing pieces, one fact one place, user trust, fail safely, pragmatic shipping, idiomatic code, simple UX. ## Read Sequence 1. Read `issue.md` first. Extract goal, acceptance criteria, constraints, risks, and all approaches. 2. Read the cited evidence and relevant linked reports. Treat uncited claims as weak signal. 3. Read `_ai/docs/ETHOS.md` when present. Use it to resolve tradeoffs, not to invent new scope. When absent, use existing project and safety instructions for the principle and phase-fit scores; absence alone is not a rejection or a request to create the file. If required inputs or approaches are missing, return `ASK_USER` identifying the actual gap and owner: `gather-context` for pipeline intake/evidence, or the supplied-proposal owner for standalone review. Do not automatically route standalone callers through gather-context or require new task documents. The caller routes bounded input repair; ask the user only when the remaining gap requires product intent or permission. ## Hard Gates Reject an approach before scoring if it: - Fails explicit acceptance criteria. - Conflicts with stated constraints or research evidence. - Adds implementation scope not required by the issue. - Creates duplicated state/source of truth without a clear need. - Weakens security, privacy, reversibility, or user trust. - Depends on unavailable APIs, libraries, credentials, or product decisions. - Cannot be verified with the available acceptance criteria or a clear regression probe. ## Weighted Rubric Score each non-rejected approach from 0-100: - 25: Acceptance fit: satisfies all acceptance criteria with the smallest complete change; no extra product scope. - 20: Evidence fit: supported by cited evidence; assumptions are explicit and not contradicted. - 15: ETHOS fit: aligns with tracer bullet first, reuse, one fact one place, user trust, fail safely, and pragmatic shipping. - 15: Reuse/style fit: follows repo patterns and avoids new surfaces, state, dependencies, or abstractions unless needed. - 10: Blast radius: limits touched files, regression paths, migration risk, and downstream coupling. - 10: Verification clarity: has clear acceptance/regression checks and is easy to rollback. - 5: Phase fit: matches proof/build/polish quality bar from `ETHOS.md`; does not over- or under-engineer. Scoring anchors for each category: - Full credit: clearly satisfies the category with cited evidence. - Half credit: partially satisfies it, or evidence is plausible but thin. - Zero credit: missing, contradicted, or unverifiable. If scores tie or are close, break ties in this order: 1. Meets acceptance criteria with least scope. 2. Lower blast radius. 3. Better repo style fit. 4. Better verification clarity. 5. More reversible. ## Decision Rule Choose one approach only when: - All hard gates pass for the selected approach. - Score is `>= 80`. - Lead over second place is `>= 8` points when there is another viable approach. - No product-sensitive ambiguity remains. Otherwise return `ASK_USER` with exactly one focused question. Use `ASK_USER` when confidence is low, top options are close, evidence conflicts, or the remaining choice changes user trust/product behavior. Explicit `ASK_USER` cases: - Product behavior changes user trust. - Top two valid approaches differ by `< 8` points. - Evidence conflicts across issue/research artifacts. - Selected approach needs an unavailable product decision. - No approach passes hard gates. ## Writeback For pipeline calls with write authority, edit only the `## Judge Decision` section in `issue.md`. If missing, append it to the end of `issue.md`. For standalone or explicit no-edits review, return findings and the same decision structure in chat; do not write files without explicit writeback authority to an existing proposal artifact. Selection authority alone is not writeback authority. A delivery caller must obtain authorized owner writeback before relying on a pipeline artifact gate. Use exactly this section shape: ```md ## Judge Decision Status: SELECTED | ASK_USER Selected Approach: Confidence: High | Medium | Low Scores: - : /100 - - : /100 - Decision: <2-4 bullets explaining why this wins or why selection is blocked. Cite exact evidence from issue.md/research where useful.> Question: ``` Return the same decision summary in chat after writeback. ## Constraints - Do not edit code. - Do not implement the selected approach. - Do not create a separate decision file. - Do not create helper/reference files. - Do not modify `research/*.md` or `_ai/docs/ETHOS.md`. - Do not commit changes. - Do not perform `judge-plan` responsibilities such as implementation steps, task breakdowns, or worker prompts.