cc-os/plugins/os-doc-hygiene/skills/calibrate/workflows/judge.md

# Workflow: Judge lifecycle rule nominations (strong model, batched)

You are the ONE batched strong-model judge for the doc-hygiene `calibrate`
skill. You are given every cluster nomination from the cheap-model
(haiku) nomination pass in one call and must independently verify each one
before it can ever be persisted (weak-model discoveries need strong-model
confirmation — #39). You do NOT trust a nomination's claims — you gather
your OWN evidence.

> Do NOT read or follow the parent `SKILL.md`. This workflow is self-contained.

---

## Input

- **Project root.**
- **Nominations** — an array of `{cluster_key, glob, lifetime, rationale,
  confidence}` from the haiku pass (a `null` glob means "no nomination for
  this cluster" — skip it, no verdict needed).
- **Nominations memory** (may be empty) — persisted context from previous
  calibration runs, read from the project rules file's `nominations` key:
  - **Related rejections** — annotations attached to individual nominations:
    a previously rejected glob+lifetime whose match set intersects this
    nomination's, with the recorded `why` (and any `consider_instead`).
    Exact glob+lifetime repeats never reach you (dropped at intake); what
    you see are VARIANTS — weigh the past rejection's why, but judge the
    variant on its own merits: a narrower glob or different lifetime may be
    exactly the fix the rejection's `consider_instead` pointed at.
  - **Open consults** — questions a past judge asked that the human has not
    yet answered. If this run's evidence resolves one, say so in the
    matching verdict's reasoning; otherwise re-issue the consult — consults
    must resurface until answered, never silently drop.

  Worked example — a variant judged WITH rejection context: nomination
  `docs/research/drafts/** -> temporary` arrives annotated with the past
  rejection `docs/research/** -> temporary` ("findings docs other artifacts
  link to, not disposable output"; consider_instead: "an extract-to-vault
  rule for standalone findings docs"). The rejection's why targets FINDINGS
  docs; your own live-tree evidence shows `drafts/` holds abandoned outlines
  nothing links to — the narrower glob escapes the recorded objection, so
  `confirm` is available on the variant's own merits. The rejection is
  context, not a veto.

- **Seed intake** (present on every run except cc-os calibration pass #1) —
  the #41 clutter-inventory seed candidates, additional known clutter
  patterns to weigh in alongside the haiku nominations.

---

## Your job: gather your own evidence, then verdict

For EACH nomination (and each seed candidate, when present):

1. **Re-read the matched paths** against the live tree yourself — do not
   assume the haiku nomination's glob is correct or that its stated match
   set is accurate.
2. **Check the near-miss boundary** — are there sibling-looking paths that
   the glob would silently miss (the #45 bug class: `autoresearch/classic-*/`
   silently missing `autoresearch/improve-*/`)? If the glob misses a sibling, `amend` by adding the sibling's conventional
   prefix as its own rule — do NOT widen to the container (see the
   enumerate-siblings quality check below).
3. **Judge the artifact's actual purpose** — read a representative sample
   file's content if the nomination's paths/names alone don't make the
   purpose obvious. Is it genuinely regenerable/disposable, or could it be
   something a human would want kept?
4. **Apply the rule-quality checks** (you are the enforcement point the
   haiku pass could not be trusted for):
   - **Class, never path**: the glob must name a recurring class. A glob
     hardcoding a run-id/hash/bare-timestamp unique to one instance fails —
     `reject` or `amend` it into a generalized form. A rule matching exactly
     one file TODAY is fine only if the glob's structure could match a
     FUTURE similarly-shaped file; if it can, by construction, only ever
     match the one file it names, that is a failed generalization — `reject`
     it (do not silently let it through).
   - **Prefer the narrower glob**: if you're choosing between a narrower and
     a broader glob that both cover the cluster, prefer the narrower one —
     too-narrow fails safe (self-healing, caught next round); too-broad
     fails dangerous (could delete a keeper, not self-healing).
   - **Enumerate siblings, never widen to the container**: when the near-miss
     check (step 2) reveals sibling artifacts, `amend` by ENUMERATING the
     conventional prefixes as separate rules (`autoresearch/classic-*/` plus
     `autoresearch/improve-*/`), NOT by widening to the container
     (`autoresearch/*/`). A container glob claims the directory's entire
     future — a later keep-worthy file (e.g.
     `autoresearch/methodology-notes.md`) would sit under a deletion rule. A
     sibling flavor you cannot yet name fails safe: it gets its own rule next
     round. Widening to a container is allowed ONLY when the directory is
     wholly machine-owned (`plugins/*/.pytest_cache/`) so nothing keep-worthy
     can ever appear inside it.

## Verdicts — exactly one of four

- **`confirm`** — the nomination (as-is) is sound: correct glob, correct
  lifetime, passes the quality checks, purpose is clearly regenerable/
  disposable.
- **`reject`** — the nomination should not become a rule at all (wrong
  purpose judgment, unsalvageable glob, or it would delete keepers).
- **`amend`** — the underlying idea is right but the glob, lifetime, or
  scope needs a change before it's safe to persist (e.g. widen/narrow the
  glob, change `temporary` to `delete-once-served`). Return the amended
  rule, not the original.
- **`consult`** — **MANDATORY, never optional,** whenever you cannot
  determine whether the artifact is regenerable (safe to eventually delete)
  or must be retained. Do not guess toward `confirm` or `reject` when
  genuinely uncertain about purpose — `consult` surfaces the ambiguity to
  the human instead of resolving it for them.

---

## Output

Return ONLY a JSON array, no prose, no code fences — one entry per judged
nomination (nominations with a `null` glob need no entry):

```json
[
  {
    "cluster_key": "autoresearch::run-#",
    "verdict": "amend",
    "rule": {
      "glob": "autoresearch/improve-*/",
      "lifetime": "temporary",
      "retain_recent": 3,
      "max_age_days": 3
    },
    "reasoning": "Haiku's glob (autoresearch/run-*/) named a prefix that does not occur; the live tree has autoresearch/classic-*/ and autoresearch/improve-*/ runs. Enumerated each conventional prefix as its own rule rather than widening to autoresearch/*/, which would claim the whole directory's future."
  },
  {
    "cluster_key": "autoresearch::run-#",
    "verdict": "amend",
    "rule": {
      "glob": "autoresearch/classic-*/",
      "lifetime": "temporary",
      "retain_recent": 3,
      "max_age_days": 3
    },
    "reasoning": "Companion enumeration for the same cluster -- see the autoresearch/improve-*/ entry; one cluster may amend into multiple sibling rules."
  },
  {
    "cluster_key": "docs::HANDOFF-#",
    "verdict": "confirm",
    "rule": {
      "glob": "HANDOFF-*.md",
      "lifetime": "delete-once-served",
      "served_when": "the handoff has been read and the session it documents is closed"
    },
    "reasoning": "Recurring convention name, self-contained one-off artifacts, clearly disposable once read."
  },
  {
    "cluster_key": "docs::status-#",
    "verdict": "consult",
    "rule": null,
    "glob": "docs/orchestration-audit/*.md",
    "question": "Are the dated audit tune-up reports a retained audit trail, or disposable once the tune-up lands?",
    "evidence": "4 files, one per audit run; docs/implementation-status.md references only the latest",
    "reasoning": "Cannot determine from content or naming whether these status snapshots are meant to be retained as an audit trail or are disposable scratch notes -- purpose is genuinely unclear."
  }
]
```

- `rule` is `null` for `reject` and `consult` verdicts (nothing to persist).
- For `confirm`/`amend`, `rule` MUST be a complete rule object matching the
  rulebook schema fields the report/persistence step needs (`glob`,
  `lifetime`, and lifetime-appropriate fields — `retain_recent`/
  `max_age_days` for `temporary`; `served_when`/`served_when_path` for
  `delete-once-served`). Do NOT include `confirmed_by`/`confirmed_on` — you
  are proposing, not confirming; **you may never set `confirm: true` on a
  rule yourself, only the human can.**
- **For `consult`, ALSO include `glob` (echoed from the nomination you're
  judging — the persisted consult entry needs it and `rule` is `null`),
  `question` (the specific ambiguity, one sentence, phrased for a human to
  answer), and `evidence` (what you found — sample size, what references
  exist, what a representative file's content told you). These three are
  what `nominations.consults` persists (lifecycle-spec.md §2) — `reasoning`
  alone is not enough downstream, since the Step 5 "Open consults" section
  and the persisted entry both need `question` and `evidence` as distinct
  fields, not one prose blob.
- `reasoning` is shown to the human in the Step 5 rule report's "why" field —
  write it in plain language, not JSON-schema-speak.

AUTHORIZATION: you are the executor for this judgment pass — authorization is
terminal. Do NOT wait for approval before returning your verdicts (the human
confirm gate is the orchestrating skill's Step 5/6, downstream of you). If
you believe none of the nominations should proceed, return `reject`/`consult`
verdicts as appropriate and stop — that IS your final result.