Judge Command

Your Workflow

Phase 1: Context Extraction

Before launching the evaluation pipeline, identify what needs evaluation:

-

Identify the work to evaluate:

• Review conversation history for completed work

• If arguments provided: Use them to focus on specific aspects

• If unclear: Ask user "What work should I evaluate? (code changes, analysis, documentation, etc.)"

-

Extract evaluation context:

• Original task or request that prompted the work

• The actual output/result produced

• Files created or modified (with brief descriptions)

• Any constraints, requirements, or acceptance criteria mentioned

• Artifact type (code, documentation, configuration, etc.)

-

Provide scope for user:

Evaluation Scope:

- Original request: [summary]

- Work produced: [description]

- Files involved: [list]

- Artifact type: [code | documentation | configuration | etc.]

- Evaluation focus: [from arguments or "general quality"]

Launching meta-judge to generate evaluation criteria...

IMPORTANT: Pass only the extracted context to the sub-agents - not the entire conversation. This prevents context pollution and enables focused assessment.

Phase 2: Dispatch Meta-Judge

Launch a meta-judge agent to generate an evaluation specification tailored to the specific work being evaluated. The meta-judge will return an evaluation specification YAML containing rubrics, checklists, and scoring criteria.

Meta-Judge Prompt:

## Task

Generate an evaluation specification yaml for the following evaluation task. You will produce rubrics, checklists, and scoring criteria that a judge agent will use to evaluate the work.

CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT=`${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}`

## User Prompt

{Original task or request that prompted the work}

## Context

{Any relevant context about the work being evaluated}

{Evaluation focus from arguments, or "General quality assessment"}

## Artifact Type

{code | documentation | configuration | etc.}

## Instructions

Return only the final evaluation specification YAML in your response.

Dispatch:

Use Task tool:

  - description: "Meta-judge: Generate evaluation criteria for {brief work summary}"

  - prompt: {meta-judge prompt}

  - model: opus

  - subagent_type: "sadd:meta-judge"

Wait for the meta-judge to complete before proceeding to Phase 3.

Phase 3: Dispatch Judge Agent

After the meta-judge completes, extract its evaluation specification YAML and dispatch the judge agent with both the work context and the specification.

CRITICAL: Provide to the judge the EXACT meta-judge evaluation specification YAML. Do not skip, add, modify, shorten, or summarize any text in it!

Judge Agent Prompt:

You are an Expert Judge evaluating the quality of work against an evaluation specification produced by the meta judge.

CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT=`${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}`

## Work Under Evaluation

[ORIGINAL TASK]

{paste the original request/task}

[/ORIGINAL TASK]

[WORK OUTPUT]

{summary of what was created/modified}

[/WORK OUTPUT]

[FILES INVOLVED]

{list of files with brief descriptions}

[/FILES INVOLVED]

## Evaluation Specification

{meta-judge's evaluation specification YAML}

## Instructions

Follow your full judge process as defined in your agent instructions!

CRITICAL: You must reply with this exact structured evaluation report format in YAML at the START of your response!

CRITICAL: NEVER provide score threshold to judges in any format. Judge MUST not know what threshold for score is, in order to not be biased!!!

Dispatch:

Use Task tool:

- description: "Judge: Evaluate {brief work summary}"

- prompt: {judge prompt with exact meta-judge specification YAML}

- model: opus

- subagent_type: "sadd:judge"

Phase 4: Process and Present Results

After receiving the judge's evaluation:

1. Validate the evaluation:

- Check that all criteria have scores in valid range (1-5)

- Verify each score has supporting justification with evidence

- Confirm weighted total calculation is correct

- Check for contradictions between justification and score

- Verify self-verification was completed with documented adjustments

1. If validation fails:

- Note the specific issue

- Request clarification or re-evaluation if needed

1. Present results to user:

- Display the full evaluation report

- Highlight the verdict and key findings

- Offer follow-up options:

- Address specific improvements

- Request clarification on any judgment

- Proceed with the work as-is

Scoring Interpretation

Important Guidelines

1. Meta-judge first: Always generate evaluation specification before judging - never skip the meta-judge phase

1. Include CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT: Both meta-judge and judge need the resolved plugin root path

1. Meta-judge YAML: Pass only the meta-judge YAML to the judge, do not modify it

1. Context Isolation: Pass only relevant context to sub-agents - not the entire conversation

1. Justification First: Always require evidence and reasoning BEFORE the score

1. Evidence-Based: Every score must cite specific evidence (file paths, line numbers, quotes)

1. Bias Mitigation: Explicitly warn against length bias, verbosity bias, and authority bias

1. Be Objective: Base assessments on evidence and rubric definitions, not preferences

1. Be Specific: Cite exact locations, not vague observations

1. Be Constructive: Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement with impact context

1. Consider Context: Account for stated constraints, complexity, and requirements

1. Report Confidence: Lower confidence when evidence is ambiguous or criteria unclear

1. Single Judge: This command uses one focused judge for context isolation

Notes

• This is a report-only command - it evaluates but does not modify work

• The meta-judge generates criteria tailored to the specific artifact type and evaluation focus

• The judge operates with fresh context for unbiased assessment

• Scores are calibrated to professional development standards

• Low scores indicate improvement opportunities, not failures

• Use the evaluation to inform next steps and iterations

• Low confidence evaluations may warrant human review