judge

## 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.

Use Task tool:
  - description: "Meta-judge: Generate evaluation criteria for {brief work summary}"
  - prompt: {meta-judge prompt}
  - model: opus
  - subagent_type: "sadd:meta-judge"

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
 
```yaml
{meta-judge's evaluation specification YAML}

 
### 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
 
2. **If validation fails**:
   - Note the specific issue
   - Request clarification or re-evaluation if needed
 
3. **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
 
1. **Meta-judge first**: Always generate evaluation specification before judging - never skip the meta-judge phase
2. **Include CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT**: Both meta-judge and judge need the resolved plugin root path
3. **Meta-judge YAML**: Pass only the meta-judge YAML to the judge, do not modify it
4. **Context Isolation**: Pass only relevant context to sub-agents - not the entire conversation
5. **Justification First**: Always require evidence and reasoning BEFORE the score
6. **Evidence-Based**: Every score must cite specific evidence (file paths, line numbers, quotes)
7. **Bias Mitigation**: Explicitly warn against length bias, verbosity bias, and authority bias
8. **Be Objective**: Base assessments on evidence and rubric definitions, not preferences
9. **Be Specific**: Cite exact locations, not vague observations
10. **Be Constructive**: Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement with impact context
11. **Consider Context**: Account for stated constraints, complexity, and requirements
12. **Report Confidence**: Lower confidence when evidence is ambiguous or criteria unclear
13. **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