Agent skill

judge

Scoring framework for test-kitchen cookoff and omakase-off. Invoked at Phase 4 to evaluate implementations using 5-criteria scoring. Do not invoke directly - called by cookoff/omakase-off.

Stars 232
Forks 15

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/aiskillstore/marketplace/tree/main/skills/2389-research/test-kitchen/judge

SKILL.md

Test Kitchen Judge

Score implementations using the 5-criteria framework. Fill out ALL sections exactly as shown.

Terminology: This skill uses "impl" but works for both:

  • Cookoff: impl-1, impl-2, impl-3 (same design, different implementations)
  • Omakase: variant-a, variant-b (different approaches/designs)

REQUIRED OUTPUT FORMAT

You MUST produce this exact structure. Do not summarize or abbreviate.

markdown
## Gate Check
| Impl | Tests Pass | Design Adherence |
|------|------------|------------------|
| impl-1 | X/X ✓ or ✗ | Yes/No |
| impl-2 | X/X ✓ or ✗ | Yes/No |

## Feasibility Check
| Impl | Status | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| impl-1 | ✓ OK / ⚠️ Flag | Details |
| impl-2 | ✓ OK / ⚠️ Flag | Details |

## Scoring Worksheet

### impl-1
**Fitness for Purpose** (Does it solve the actual problem?)

*Functional requirements:*
- [ ] Primary use case works end-to-end?
- [ ] All explicitly stated requirements implemented?
- [ ] Handles realistic scenarios, not just happy path?

*User needs (beyond literal requirements):*
- [ ] Would the user actually use this, or just demo it?
- [ ] Does it solve the real problem, not just the literal request?
- [ ] Does deployment/distribution match stated needs?

*Future considerations (if relevant):*
- [ ] If growth/scaling mentioned, does architecture support it?
- [ ] If team/collaboration mentioned, is it maintainable by others?

Checklist: _/8 YES → **Score: _/5** (7-8=5, 5-6=4, 4=3, 2-3=2, 0-1=1)
*Note: Not all items apply to every project. Score based on relevant items.*

**Justified Complexity** (Every line earning its keep?)
- Unnecessary abstractions: ___
- Dead code: ___
- Bloat estimate: ___%

*Line count comparison (if multiple impls):*
- This impl: ___ lines
- Smallest impl: ___ lines
- Extra lines justified by: ___

→ **Score: _/5** (5=minimal, 4=slight bloat <10%, 3=10-25% bloat, 2=25-50%, 1=>50%)

**Readability** (Understand core flow in 5 min?)
Violations:
- [ ] Single-letter vars (not loop index): +1 each = __
- [ ] Functions >50 lines: +1 each = __
- [ ] Nesting >3 levels: +1 each = __
- [ ] Magic numbers: +1 each = __
- [ ] Bad function names: +1 each = __
Total violations: __ → **Score: _/5** (0=5, 1-2=4, 3-4=3, 5-7=2, 8+=1)

**Robustness & Scale** (Handles unexpected + growth?)
- [ ] Input validation?
- [ ] External call error handling?
- [ ] Useful error messages?
- [ ] Null/empty handling?
- [ ] Async timeouts?
- [ ] No unbounded loops?
- [ ] O(n log n) or better?
- [ ] Bounded memory?
- [ ] Queries paginated?
- [ ] No blocking I/O in hot path?
- [ ] Backoff/retry logic?
- [ ] Handles 10x load?
Checklist: _/12 YES + feasibility flags → **Score: _/5**
(11-12 + no flags=5, 9-10 or minor flag=4, 7-8=3, 5-6 or major flag=2, <5 or critical flag=1)

**Maintainability** (Pain of next change?)
- [ ] Single responsibility per function?
- [ ] Explicit dependencies (no globals)?
- [ ] Business logic separated from infra?
- [ ] New feature = ≤3 files changed?
- [ ] Config externalized?
- [ ] Tests catch regressions?
Checklist: _/6 YES → **Score: _/5** (6=5, 5=4, 4=3, 2-3=2, 0-1=1)

### impl-2
[REPEAT SAME FORMAT]

### impl-3 (if applicable)
[REPEAT SAME FORMAT]

## Judge Scorecard
| Criterion | impl-1 | impl-2 | impl-3 | Best |
|-----------|--------|--------|--------|------|
| Fitness for Purpose | | | | |
| Justified Complexity | | | | |
| Readability | | | | |
| Robustness & Scale | | | | |
| Maintainability | | | | |
| **TOTAL** | /25 | /25 | /25 | |

## Hard Gates
| Gate | Result |
|------|--------|
| Fitness Gate (Δ ≥ 2) | Triggered/Not triggered |
| Critical Flaw (any = 1) | Triggered/Not triggered |

## Winner Selection
**Winner: impl-X** (Score: __/25)

**Selection rationale:**
[2-3 sentences explaining WHY this implementation won]

**Trade-offs acknowledged:**
[What the other implementations did better]

Scoring Reference

Scores Meaning

Score Meaning
5 Excellent - exceeds expectations
4 Good - fully meets requirements
3 Adequate - core works, some gaps
2 Poor - significant issues
1 Critical flaw - disqualifying

Hard Gates (Automatic)

  1. Fitness Gate: If Fitness Δ ≥ 2 between impls → Higher fitness WINS immediately
  2. Critical Flaw: If ANY criterion = 1 → That impl is ELIMINATED

Fitness Gate Interpretation

The Fitness Gate triggers the same way in both contexts, but means different things:

Context What Fitness Δ ≥ 2 Means
Cookoff One implementation deviated from or misunderstood the design. All impls should have similar Fitness since they're implementing the same spec. A large gap is a red flag.
Omakase One approach genuinely solves the problem better. Different approaches can legitimately have different Fitness. A large gap means one approach is clearly superior.

In both cases, higher Fitness wins. The interpretation just explains why the gap exists.

Feasibility Red Flags

Check before scoring:

  • O(n²) or worse on unbounded data
  • Unbounded memory growth
  • Self-DDoS patterns (polling, no backoff)
  • Missing pagination
  • Blocking I/O in hot path
  • No error recovery

Process

  1. Read all implementation code (should already be in context)
  2. Fill out the worksheet for EACH implementation - do not skip sections
  3. Check hard gates
  4. Announce winner with rationale

CRITICAL: Use integer scores only (1-5). Do not use half points like 4.5.

CRITICAL: Fill out every checkbox. Do not summarize or abbreviate the worksheet.

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

aiskillstore/marketplace

perigon-backend

Perigon ASP.NET Core + EF Core + Aspire conventions

232 15
Explore
aiskillstore/marketplace

perigon-agent

Pointers for Copilot/agents to apply Perigon conventions

232 15
Explore
aiskillstore/marketplace

perigon-angular

Angular 21+ standalone/Material/signal conventions for Perigon WebApp

232 15
Explore
aiskillstore/marketplace

fastapi-mastery

Comprehensive FastAPI development skill covering REST API creation, routing, request/response handling, validation, authentication, database integration, middleware, and deployment. Use when working with FastAPI projects, building APIs, implementing CRUD operations, setting up authentication/authorization, integrating databases (SQL/NoSQL), adding middleware, handling WebSockets, or deploying FastAPI applications. Triggered by requests involving .py files with FastAPI code, API endpoint creation, Pydantic models, or FastAPI-specific features.

232 15
Explore
aiskillstore/marketplace

context7-efficient

Token-efficient library documentation fetcher using Context7 MCP with 86.8% token savings through intelligent shell pipeline filtering. Fetches code examples, API references, and best practices for JavaScript, Python, Go, Rust, and other libraries. Use when users ask about library documentation, need code examples, want API usage patterns, are learning a new framework, need syntax reference, or troubleshooting with library-specific information. Triggers include questions like "Show me React hooks", "How do I use Prisma", "What's the Next.js routing syntax", or any request for library/framework documentation.

232 15
Explore
aiskillstore/marketplace

browser-use

Browser automation using Playwright MCP. Navigate websites, fill forms, click elements, take screenshots, and extract data. Use when tasks require web browsing, form submission, web scraping, UI testing, or any browser interaction.

232 15
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results