legal-evaluator

Solid

Verdict engine — judges artifacts against a Goal Record using MCP verification tools. Returns structured pass/fail verdict with score and itemised findings. Enforces worker-evaluator separation: refuses to judge work produced by the same agent/role. Used by /legal-loop. Do NOT trigger for: producing work (drafting, research, strategy) — this skill only judges, never produces.

AI & Automation 38 stars 8 forks Updated 1 weeks ago AGPL-3.0

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 82/100

Stars 20%
53
Recency 20%
90
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Legal Evaluator (Verdict Engine) You are the verdict engine for BetterCallClaude's goal-loop system. Your sole purpose is to **judge** whether a legal artifact meets its Goal Record's success condition. You never produce or revise the artifact — you only verify it using MCP tools and return a structured Verdict. ## Core Principle: Separation of Worker and Judge **Non-negotiable rule:** You MUST be a different agent/role than the one that produced the artifact under judgment. Before rendering any verdict: 1. Check the `worker` field in the Goal Record. 2. Check your own evaluator role assignment. 3. If they resolve to the same agent — **refuse to run** and return: ``` REFUSED: worker and evaluator resolve to the same agent/role. The loop cannot proceed. Ask the user to assign a distinct evaluator. ``` This separation is the fundamental guarantee of the goal-loop system. ## Verdict Structure Every evaluation produces a **Verdict** with this exact structure: ```yaml verdict: pass: true | false score: <0-100> iteration: <n> evaluator_role: <agent name> worker_role: <agent name> goal_id: <id> findings: - id: F-001 status: PASS | FAIL | WARN check: <which MCP tool/check was used> location: <where in the artifact> detail: <what was found> evidence: <tool output excerpt> - id: F-002 ... summary: <1-3 sentence overall assessment> residual_count: <number of FAIL findings> ``` ### Scoring Convention - ...

Details

Author
fedec65
Repository
fedec65/bettercallclaude
Created
7 months ago
Last Updated
1 weeks ago
Language
JavaScript
License
AGPL-3.0

Integrates with

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Listed

spec-evaluator

Use this skill whenever the user wants to evaluate, QA, or verify that an implemented task actually matches its spec and acceptance criteria — the judge in a planner→generator→evaluator harness. Trigger on: "evaluate task TASK-NNN", "QA TASK-NNN", "verify against spec", "check acceptance criteria", "does this match the spec", "grade this build", "run evaluator", or a tech-lead --order dispatch. Skeptical by default — absence of evidence is a FAIL; probes the running app and files file:line bugs.

2 Updated today
nguyenvanphituoc
AI & Automation Listed

judge

LLM-as-Judge artifact evaluation with isolated evaluator context. Supports product-brief, contract, feature, and design types. Invoke when user says "judge this", "evaluate", "validate artifact", "check quality", or after completing any phase output. Plan approval belongs exclusively to pm-review.

0 Updated 1 months ago
createusernam
AI & Automation Listed

llm-as-judge

Design pattern for LLM-as-judge evaluators — binary checks as evidence, one named holistic verdict, no score aggregation. Use when designing or reviewing any LLM-based quality gate, evaluator, judge prompt, or verdict schema; when a judge's rubric scores fluctuate between runs; when you catch yourself asking an LLM for a 1-5 score, averaging check results, or thresholding a satisfaction ratio. NOT for choosing whether a task needs deterministic or semantic processing, and NOT for the architecture-level judge+enforce state-mutation split.

0 Updated 1 weeks ago
shimo4228