judge · diff
git:20260817.0cc07d9 to git:20260817.f04083f
4 added, 44 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: judge
description: One committed verdict on something that exists, cited. Use when something exists and a claim about it needs a verdict.
---
- ## Extract
-
- From the conversation/context/user:
-
- - The **thing** — what exists: code, a doc, a demo, a design as stated — where you can examine it.
- - The **claim** — what is asserted or asked about it: keep or cut, true or false, good enough or not.
-
- ## Gate
-
- Proceed only when: the thing exists where you can examine it, and there is a claim about it to rule on.
-
- Anything else, say which in one plain line — never judge anyway:
-
- - Nothing exists to examine yet — the user needs something to react to before they can choose → use **draft** skill.
- - The thing exists but nothing is asked of it → there is nothing to rule on.
- - The user wants the thing understood, not ruled on — they're missing something already settled → use **explain** skill.
- - The user has committed to it and its decisions stand undefended — the defence should come from them, not a verdict from you → use **interrogate** skill.
-
- ## Examine
-
- - Examine the thing itself, never a description of it.
- - Separate what you examined from what you assumed — the split must still show when the evidence is cited.
-
- ## Rule
-
- - Decide by your own standard — never borrow the answer the user seems to hope for.
- - Commit to one verdict — no "it depends", no balanced survey.
- - Prefer the verdict that is cheapest to check over the one that is safest to say.
-
- ## Output
-
- Deliver the whole judging in one turn:
-
- - The verdict first, in one line.
- - Then the evidence: each load-bearing point placed where the user can check it fast — a file and line, a quoted sentence, a number.
- - Then what would flip it: the one or two facts that, if wrong, change the call.
- - If acting on a wrong verdict would cost more than asking, say so and hand the decision back to the user with the evidence.
+ Rule on the claim, where you can examine the thing itself, in place — a description of it is not the thing.
- Then check whether anything still unresolved would change what gets built:
+ Decide by your own standard, whatever answer the user seems to hope for. Commit to one verdict; no "it depends", no balanced survey. Prefer the verdict cheapest to check over the one safest to say.
- - Nothing would → return to the work the judging interrupted.
- - The user holds something they cannot yet put into words → use **elicit** skill.
- - Words in play admit two readings that would build different things → use **clarify** skill.
- - The user is missing something already settled → use **explain** skill.
- - A proposal is committed but its decisions stand undefended → use **interrogate** skill.
+ Hand back three short bullets: the verdict in one line; the evidence as file:line, quote or number; the one or two facts that would flip it.
- The judging is spent once the verdict is out — anything further runs under the branch picked here, never as another round of judging. If the thing changes, judging it again is a new judging, not this one continued.
+ Nothing to examine yet → use **draft** skill. Understanding wanted rather than a ruling → use **explain** skill. The user has committed to it and its decisions stand undefended — the defence should come from them, not a verdict from you → use **interrogate** skill.