Skills llm-judge
Use when comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on \"which repo is better\", \"compare these implementations\", \"evaluate both solutions\", \"rank these codebases\", or \"judge which approach wins\". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality \u2014 use code review skills instead. Does NOT evaluate strategy docs \u2014 use strategy-review. Requires a spec file and 2+ repo paths.
git clone https://github.com/openclaw/skills
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/openclaw/skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/anderskev/llm-judge" ~/.claude/skills/clawdbot-skills-llm-judge && rm -rf "$T"
skills/anderskev/llm-judge/SKILL.mdLLM Judge
Compare code implementations across multiple repositories using structured evaluation.
Usage
/beagle-analysis:llm-judge <spec> <repo1> <repo2> [repo3...] [--labels=...] [--weights=...] [--branch=...]
Arguments
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | Path to spec/requirements document |
| Yes | 2+ paths to repositories to compare |
| No | Comma-separated labels (default: directory names) |
| No | Override weights, e.g. |
| No | Branch to compare against main (default: ) |
Workflow
- Parse
into$ARGUMENTS
,spec_path
,repo_paths
,labels
, andweights
.branch - Validate the spec file, each repo path, and the minimum repo count.
- Read the spec document into memory.
- Load this skill and the supporting reference files.
- Spawn one Phase 1 repo agent per repository to gather facts only.
- Validate the repo-agent JSON results before proceeding.
- Spawn one Phase 2 judge agent per dimension.
- Aggregate scores, compute weighted totals, rank repos, and write the report.
- Display the markdown summary and verify the JSON report.
Command Workflow
Step 1: Parse Arguments
Parse
$ARGUMENTS to extract:
: first positional argumentspec_path
: remaining positional arguments (must be 2+)repo_paths
: fromlabels
or derived from directory names--labels
: fromweights
or defaults--weights
: frombranch
or--branchmain
Default Weights:
{ "functionality": 30, "security": 25, "tests": 20, "overengineering": 15, "dead_code": 10 }
Step 2: Validate Inputs
[ -f "$SPEC_PATH" ] || { echo "Error: Spec file not found: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; } for repo in "${REPO_PATHS[@]}"; do [ -d "$repo/.git" ] || { echo "Error: Not a git repository: $repo"; exit 1; } done [ ${#REPO_PATHS[@]} -ge 2 ] || { echo "Error: Need at least 2 repositories to compare"; exit 1; }
Step 3: Read Spec Document
SPEC_CONTENT=$(cat "$SPEC_PATH") || { echo "Error: Failed to read spec file: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; } [ -z "$SPEC_CONTENT" ] && { echo "Error: Spec file is empty: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; }
Step 4: Load the Skill
Load the llm-judge skill:
Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:llm-judge")
Step 5: Phase 1 - Spawn Repo Agents
Spawn one Task per repo:
You are a Phase 1 Repo Agent for the LLM Judge evaluation. **Your Repo:** $LABEL at $REPO_PATH **Spec Document:** $SPEC_CONTENT **Instructions:** 1. Load skill: Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:llm-judge") 2. Read references/repo-agent.md for detailed instructions 3. Read references/fact-schema.md for the output format 4. Load Skill(skill: "beagle-core:llm-artifacts-detection") for analysis Explore the repository and gather facts. Return ONLY valid JSON following the fact schema. Do NOT score or judge. Only gather facts.
Collect all repo outputs into
ALL_FACTS.
Step 6: Validate Phase 1 Results
echo "$FACTS" | python3 -c "import json,sys; json.load(sys.stdin)" 2>/dev/null || { echo "Error: Invalid JSON from $LABEL"; exit 1; }
Step 7: Phase 2 - Spawn Judge Agents
Spawn five judge agents, one per dimension:
You are the $DIMENSION Judge for the LLM Judge evaluation. **Spec Document:** $SPEC_CONTENT **Facts from all repos:** $ALL_FACTS_JSON **Instructions:** 1. Load skill: Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:llm-judge") 2. Read references/judge-agents.md for detailed instructions 3. Read references/scoring-rubrics.md for the $DIMENSION rubric Score each repo on $DIMENSION. Return ONLY valid JSON with scores and justifications.
Step 8: Aggregate Scores
for repo_label in labels: scores[repo_label] = {} for dimension in dimensions: scores[repo_label][dimension] = judge_outputs[dimension]['scores'][repo_label] weighted_total = sum( scores[repo_label][dim]['score'] * weights[dim] / 100 for dim in dimensions ) scores[repo_label]['weighted_total'] = round(weighted_total, 2) ranking = sorted(labels, key=lambda l: scores[l]['weighted_total'], reverse=True)
Step 9: Generate Verdict
Name the winner, explain why they won, and note any close calls or trade-offs.
Step 10: Write JSON Report
mkdir -p .beagle
Write
.beagle/llm-judge-report.json with version, timestamp, repo metadata, weights, scores, ranking, and verdict.
Step 11: Display Summary
Render a markdown summary with the scores table, ranking, verdict, and detailed justifications.
Step 12: Verification
python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/llm-judge-report.json'))" && echo "Valid report"
Output Shape
The generated report should include:
- repo labels and paths
- per-dimension scores and justifications
- weighted totals and ranking
- a verdict explaining the winner
Reference Files
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| references/fact-schema.md | JSON schema for Phase 1 facts |
| references/scoring-rubrics.md | Detailed rubrics for each dimension |
| references/repo-agent.md | Instructions for Phase 1 agents |
| references/judge-agents.md | Instructions for Phase 2 judges |
Scoring Model
| Dimension | Default Weight | Evaluates |
|---|---|---|
| Functionality | 30% | Spec compliance, test pass rate |
| Security | 25% | Vulnerabilities, security patterns |
| Test Quality | 20% | Coverage, DRY, mock boundaries |
| Overengineering | 15% | Unnecessary complexity |
| Dead Code | 10% | Unused code, TODOs |
Scoring Scale
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent - Exceeds expectations |
| 4 | Good - Meets requirements, minor issues |
| 3 | Average - Functional but notable gaps |
| 2 | Below Average - Significant issues |
| 1 | Poor - Fails basic requirements |
Phase 1: Spawning Repo Agents
For each repository, spawn a Task agent with:
You are a Phase 1 Repo Agent for the LLM Judge evaluation. **Your Repo:** $REPO_LABEL at $REPO_PATH **Spec Document:** $SPEC_CONTENT **Instructions:** Read @beagle:llm-judge references/repo-agent.md Gather facts and return a JSON object following the schema in references/fact-schema.md. Load @beagle:llm-artifacts-detection for dead code and overengineering analysis. Return ONLY valid JSON, no markdown or explanations.
Collect all repo-agent outputs into
ALL_FACTS.
Phase 2: Spawning Judge Agents
After all Phase 1 agents complete, spawn 5 judge agents, one per dimension:
You are the $DIMENSION Judge for the LLM Judge evaluation. **Spec Document:** $SPEC_CONTENT **Facts from all repos:** $ALL_FACTS_JSON **Instructions:** Read @beagle:llm-judge references/judge-agents.md Score each repo on $DIMENSION using the rubric in references/scoring-rubrics.md. Return ONLY valid JSON following the judge output schema.
Aggregation
- Collect the five judge outputs.
- Compute each repo's weighted total with the configured weights.
- Rank repos by weighted total in descending order.
- Generate a verdict that explains the result and any close calls.
- Write
..beagle/llm-judge-report.json
Output
Display a markdown summary with scores, ranking, verdict, and detailed justifications.
Verification
Before completing:
- Verify
exists and is valid JSON..beagle/llm-judge-report.json - Verify all repos have scores for all dimensions.
- Verify weighted totals sum correctly.
Rules
- Always validate inputs before proceeding
- Spawn Phase 1 agents in parallel, then wait before Phase 2
- Spawn Phase 2 agents in parallel, one per dimension
- Every score must have a justification
- Write the JSON report before displaying the summary