- 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? | Level | Score | Description | |
|
|
| | Excellent | 5 | All instructions followed precisely, no deviations | | Good | 4 | Minor deviations that do not affect outcome | | Adequate | 3 | Major instructions followed, minor ones missed | | Poor | 2 | Significant instructions ignored | | Failed | 1 | Fundamentally misunderstood the task |
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? | Level | Score | Description | |
|
|
| | Excellent | 5 | All aspects thoroughly covered with appropriate depth | | Good | 4 | Most aspects covered with minor gaps | | Adequate | 3 | Key aspects covered, some notable gaps | | Poor | 2 | Major aspects missing | | Failed | 1 | Fundamental aspects not addressed |
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? | Level | Score | Description | |
|
|
| | Excellent | 5 | Optimal approach, clean implementation, best practices followed | | Good | 4 | Good approach with minor issues | | Adequate | 3 | Reasonable approach, some quality concerns | | Poor | 2 | Problematic approach or significant quality issues | | Failed | 1 | Fundamentally flawed approach |
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? | Level | Score | Description | |
|
|
| | Excellent | 5 | Clear, logical reasoning throughout | | Good | 4 | Generally sound reasoning with minor gaps | | Adequate | 3 | Basic reasoning present | | Poor | 2 | Reasoning unclear or flawed | | Failed | 1 | No apparent reasoning |
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? | Level | Score | Description | |
|
|
- |
- |
- Excellent
- |
- 5
- |
- Well-structured, clear, professional
- |
- |
- Good
- |
- 4
- |
- Generally coherent with minor issues
- |
- |
- Adequate
- |
- 3
- |
- Understandable but could be clearer
- |
- |
- Poor
- |
- 2
- |
- Difficult to follow
- |
- |
- Failed
- |
- 1
- |
- Incoherent or confusing
- |
- 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