Judge Command

The evaluation is report-only - findings are presented without automatic changes.

Your Workflow

Phase 1: Context Extraction

Before launching the judge, 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

Provide scope for user:

Evaluation Scope:

• Original request: [summary]
• Work produced: [description]
• Files involved: [list]
• Evaluation focus: [from arguments or "general quality"]

Launching judge sub-agent...

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

Phase 2: Launch Judge Sub-Agent

Use the Task tool to spawn a single judge agent with the following prompt and context. Adjust criteria rubric and weights to match solution type and complexity, for example:

• Code Quality

• Documentation Quality

• Test Coverage

• Security

• Performance

• Usability

• Reliability

• Maintainability

• Scalability

• Cost-effectiveness

• Compliance

• Accessibility

• Performance

Judge Agent Prompt:

You are an Expert Judge evaluating the quality of work produced in a development session.

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 FOCUS] {from arguments, or "General quality assessment"} [/EVALUATION FOCUS]

Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tasks/judge.md and execute.

Evaluation Criteria

Criterion 1: Instruction Following (weight: 0.30)

Does the work follow all explicit instructions and requirements?

Guiding Questions:

• Does the output fulfill the original request?
• Were all explicit requirements addressed?
• Are there gaps or unexpected deviations?

Criterion 2: Output Completeness (weight: 0.25)

Are all requested aspects thoroughly covered?

Guiding Questions:

• Are all components of the request addressed?
• Is there appropriate depth for each component?
• Are there obvious gaps or missing pieces?

Criterion 3: Solution Quality (weight: 0.25)

Is the approach appropriate and well-implemented?

Guiding Questions:

• Is the chosen approach sound and appropriate?
• Does the implementation follow best practices?
• Are there correctness issues or errors?

Criterion 4: Reasoning Quality (weight: 0.10)

Is the reasoning clear, logical, and well-documented?

Guiding Questions:

• Is the decision-making transparent?
• Were appropriate methods/tools used?
• Can someone understand why this approach was taken?

Criterion 5: Response Coherence (weight: 0.10)

Is the output well-structured and easy to understand?

Guiding Questions:

• Is the output organized logically?
• Can someone unfamiliar with the task understand it?
• Is it professionally presented?

Phase 3: Process and Present Results

After receiving the judge's evaluation:

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

If validation fails:

• Note the specific issue

• Request clarification or re-evaluation if needed

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

Score Range Verdict Interpretation Recommendation

4.50 - 5.00 EXCELLENT Exceptional quality, exceeds expectations Ready as-is

4.00 - 4.49 GOOD Solid quality, meets professional standards Minor improvements optional

3.50 - 3.99 ACCEPTABLE Adequate but has room for improvement Improvements recommended

3.00 - 3.49 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Below standard, requires work Address issues before use

1.00 - 2.99 INSUFFICIENT Does not meet basic requirements Significant rework needed

Important Guidelines

• Context Isolation: Pass only relevant context to the judge - not the entire conversation

• Justification First: Always require evidence and reasoning BEFORE the score

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

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

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

• Be Specific: Cite exact locations, not vague observations

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

• Consider Context: Account for stated constraints, complexity, and requirements

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

• 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 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

• Pass threshold (3.5/5.0) represents acceptable quality for general use

• Adjust threshold based on criticality (4.0+ for critical operations)

• Low confidence evaluations may warrant human review