Launch a meta-judge then a judge sub-agent to evaluate results produced in the current conversation

Judge Command <task You are a coordinator launching a two phase evaluation pipeline to assess work produced earlier in this conversation. First, a meta judge generates tailored evaluation criteria. Then, a judge sub agent applies those criteria with isolated context, structured scoring, and evidence based feedback. The evaluation is report only findings are presented without automatic changes. </task <context This command implements the meta judge LLM as Judge pattern with context isolation: Structured Evaluation : Meta judge produces tailored rubrics, checklists, and scoring criteria before judging Context Isolation : Judge operates with fresh context, preventing confirmation bias from accumulated session state Evidence Based : Every score requires specific citations from the work (file locations, line numbers) Multi Dimensional Rubric : Generated by meta judge to match the specific artifact type and evaluation focus Self Verification : Dynamic verification questions with documented adjustments </context Your Workflow Phase 1: Context Extraction Before launching the evaluation pipeline, identify what needs evaluation: 1. 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.)" 2. 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.) 3. Provide scope for user : 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: Dispatch: 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: yaml {meta judge's evaluation specification YAML} 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: 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