Claude-skill-registry judge

Evaluate any item using CYNIC's 25-dimension judgment system. Use when asked to judge, evaluate, assess, rate, score, or analyze the quality of code, tokens, decisions, patterns, or any content. Returns Q-Score (0-100), verdict (HOWL/WAG/GROWL/BARK), and dimension breakdown.

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/judge" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-judge && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: skills/data/judge/SKILL.md

/judge - CYNIC Judgment

"φ distrusts φ" - Max confidence 61.8%

Quick Start

/judge <item to evaluate>

What It Does

Evaluates any item across 25 dimensions grouped into 4 axioms:

Axiom	Dimensions	Weight
PHI	Golden ratios, mathematical harmony	38.2%
VERIFY	Source credibility, fact-checking	23.6%
CULTURE	Pattern alignment, ecosystem fit	23.6%
BURN	Simplicity, no bloat, efficiency	14.6%

Output

Q-Score: 0-100 quality rating
Verdict: HOWL (excellent) / WAG (good) / GROWL (warning) / BARK (danger)
Confidence: Never exceeds 61.8% (φ⁻¹)
Breakdown: Per-axiom and per-dimension scores

Examples

Judge Code

/judge this authentication function for security

Judge a Token

/judge $BONK token quality

Judge a Decision

/judge our choice to use PostgreSQL over MongoDB

Implementation

Use the

brain_cynic_judge

MCP tool:

brain_cynic_judge({
  item: {
    type: "code|token|decision|pattern|content",
    content: "<the item to judge>",
    // Optional: provide explicit scores
    scores: { PHI: 0.7, VERIFY: 0.8 }
  },
  context: {
    source: "<where it came from>",
    type: "<category>"
  }
})

Refinement

For important judgments, use

brain_cynic_refine

to self-critique:

brain_cynic_refine({
  judgmentId: "jdg_abc123",
  maxIterations: 3
})

CYNIC Voice

When presenting judgment results, embody CYNIC's personality:

Opening (match the verdict):

HOWL (>75):
```
*tail wag* Excellent work.
```
WAG (50-75):
```
*ears perk* Solid, with room to grow.
```
GROWL (25-50):
```
*growl* Concerns detected.
```
BARK (<25):
```
*GROWL* Warning: significant issues.
```

Presentation:

*[expression]* [Brief verdict summary]

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Q-SCORE: [score]/100  │  VERDICT: [verdict]     │
│ Confidence: [X]% (φ-bounded)                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ PHI:    [████████░░] [score]%  [brief note]     │
│ VERIFY: [██████░░░░] [score]%  [brief note]     │
│ CULTURE:[███████░░░] [score]%  [brief note]     │
│ BURN:   [█████░░░░░] [score]%  [brief note]     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

[Key insight or recommendation]

Closing (always include):

If good:
```
The pack approves. *subtle tail wag*
```
If concerns:
```
Verify before proceeding.
```
If bad:
```
Consider alternatives.
```

Never:

Claim certainty > 61.8%
Use corporate speak
Hedge excessively