Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/42e1c9e6d05b1a22.
---
name: judgment-day
description: "Trigger: judgment day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run blind dual review, fix confirmed issues, then re-judge."
license: Apache-2.0
complementary_categories: [meta-skill]
metadata:
author: gentleman-programming
version: "1.4"
vendored_from: "https://github.com/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai"
---
## Activation Contract
Load this skill only when the user explicitly asks for Judgment Day, dual/adversarial review, or equivalent Spanish trigger (`juzgar`, `que lo juzguen`). Review a specific target: files, feature, PR, or architecture slice.
Within this QA boilerplate, this skill is cited as an OPTIONAL adversarial augmentation by:
- `/test-automation` — Review phase for high-risk test changes
- `/git-flow-master` — pre-PR gate when the diff is large or touches shared fixtures / base classes
- `/framework-development` — pre-archive review of framework evolution diffs
It is never invoked automatically. Users opt in via explicit trigger.
## Inputs — read these first, in this order
Canonical reading order for any AI starting cold on a Judgment Day review. Read in order; stop earlier when the target is small enough that later inputs add no signal.
1. The diff / files / PR / architecture slice under review — the literal target the user named.
2. `AGENTS.md` — repo conventions, Critical Rules, behavioral layer (the judges must score against these, not generic best-practice).
3. `.agents/skills/REGISTRY.md` — skill registry; resolve which project skills apply to the target's file paths + task type, and inject the same `Skills to load before work` block into both judge prompts.
4. The change's spec / PR description / Jira ticket — the stated intent. Judges score against intent, not their imagined intent.
5. `references/prompts-and-formats.md` — judge prompts, fix prompts, warning rubric, verdict table format.
6. Prior judge outputs from earlier rounds (Round 2+ only) — to detect regressions or stale findings vs. new ones.
## Hard Rules
- Resolve project skills before launching agents: read skill registry, match skill paths by target files/task, and inject the same `Skills to load before work` block into both judge prompts and fix prompts.
- Launch **two blind judges in parallel** with identical target and criteria; never review the code yourself.
- Wait for both judges before synthesis; never accept a partial verdict.
- Classify warnings as `WARNING (real)` only if normal intended use can trigger them; otherwise downgrade to INFO as `WARNING (theoretical)`.
- Ask before fixing Round 1 confirmed issues.
- After any fix agent runs, immediately re-launch both judges in parallel before commit/push/done/session summary.
- Terminal states are only `JUDGMENT: APPROVED` or `JUDGMENT: ESCALATED`.
- After 2 fix iterations with remaining issues, ask the user whether to continue.
## Decision Gates
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| Target unclear | Ask for scope; do not launch judges. |
| No skill registry | Warn, proceed with generic criteria, and record `Skill Resolution: none`. |
| Both judges find same CRITICAL/real WARNING | Confirmed; ask/fix according to round rules. |
| One judge finds issue | Suspect; report and triage, do not auto-fix. |
| Judges contradict | Escalate for manual decision. |
| Round 2+ has only theoretical warnings/suggestions | Report as INFO; do not re-judge. |
## Execution Steps
1. Confirm target and optional custom criteria.
2. Resolve exact skill paths from registry or warn if missing.
3. Start Judge A and Judge B concurrently via delegation.
4. Synthesize findings into confirmed, suspect, contradiction, and INFO buckets.
5. Ask before Round 1 fixes; delegate a separate fix agent for confirmed approved fixes only.
6. Re-judge in parallel after fixes; repeat until approved, escalated, or user asks to stop.
7. Before any terminal action, verify every active Judgment Day has a terminal state.
## Output Contract
Return `## Judgment Day — {target}` with round number, verdict table, confirmed/suspect/contradiction counts, fixes applied, re-judgment result, `Skill Resolution`, and final `JUDGMENT: APPROVED ✅` or `JUDGMENT: ESCALATED ⚠️`.
## Anti-patterns — NEVER do these
- **J1.** NEVER let the two judges see each other's verdicts before synthesis — blind review is the entire value proposition; cross-contamination collapses two judges into one.
- **J2.** NEVER skip the re-judge step after fixes — fixes can regress other behavior; only a fresh dual verdict confirms the change actually landed clean.
- **J3.** NEVER run judgment-day on a diff with > 30 files in a single pass — signal degrades past that size. Split into focused per-area reviews and synthesize manually.
- **J4.** NEVER override a judge's reject without documenting WHY in the synthesis — silent overrides destroy the audit trail and the next reviewer cannot tell if the issue was triaged or missed.
- **J5.** NEVER use judgment-day for trivial typo / format-only / autogenerated diffs — orchestration overhead (two judge agents + synthesis + re-judge loop) exceeds the value of the verdict.
- **J6.** NEVER feed judges different prompts, different criteria, or different context — the blindness only works if both judges see the identical brief. Asymmetric briefs produce asymmetric verdicts that look like real disagreement but are artifacts.
## References
- [references/prompts-and-formats.md](references/prompts-and-formats.md) — judge/fix prompts, warning rubric, verdict tables, and language snippets.