judgment-day

Contract

The coordinator scopes and synthesizes; judges review blindly; the fixer edits only authorized findings. Missing target is ASK, never a partial review. Load at most 3-5 relevant project rules and inject the same distilled rules into every child brief.

Full protocol

1. Launch jd-judge-a and jd-judge-b independently, preferably in parallel. A emphasizes correctness/edge cases; B emphasizes security/performance. Each gets one sweep, or two only for >400 changed lines or a hot path.
2. A valid result is clean or contains evidence-backed findings with stable ids and failure scenarios. Retry one malformed child once; a second malformed return is JUDGMENT: INVALID ROUND.
3. Synthesize: both judges = confirmed; one judge's CRITICAL/WARNING inside its emphasis = emphasis-confirmed; other single findings = suspect; disagreement = contradiction. Keep ids and lifecycle open | fixed | verified | refuted | wont-fix.
4. Without preset mode, ask whether to fix/re-judge, fix only, or stop. Never edit before authorization. verdict-only stops; full authorizes the first fix.
5. jd-fix touches confirmed and emphasis-confirmed rows only. Re-judge those ids with fresh A/B judges. Any open verdict stays open; both fixed = verified; both refuted = refuted. Defects introduced by the fix are new findings.
6. Maximum two fix rounds. Each later fix/re-judge needs a continue gate. Remaining confirmed issues escalate; never loop forever.

Light protocol

Use one jd-solo sweep. Retry malformed output once. Auto-fix CRITICAL rows only when light mode was preset, once, with no re-judge. Report other findings and recommend full judgment if evidence is severe or contradictory.

A2A