title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-42__research_cycle_restructure/phase-b/review/judge.md"
Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"¶
Mindset: Judge. You have the evidence from Verify. Now rule on quality. Every ✅ needs proof. Every ❌ needs a specific finding. Test: "Would I stake my reputation on this passing production review?" Mode: docs Verify findings: verify.md
Universal Checklist¶
| # | Check | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DoD met? | ✅ | All 3 ACs verified: 10/10 sub-items for AC-1, 3/3 for AC-2, 4/4 for AC-3. All DoF gate greps = 0 matches. See verify.md V1, V2 |
| 2 | Philosophy aligned | ✅ | P1 (Locality): RES.md path inside research/iterN/. P2 (Sort order): numbered stage files at every reference. P3 (Container): no researchN/ remains. P4 (Casing): phase-a/. P5 (Optional enrichment): agent/sources marked optional. P7 (Tool-agnostic): no brand names in plan.md |
| 3 | Tech debt documented | ✅ | RF §5 Observations: 2 items (handoff.md TD-112 PhaseA refs, compilable_contract.md TD-111 PhaseA refs). Both correctly scoped as out-of-scope carryovers |
| 4 | Style & standards | ✅ | Artifact filename follows convention: RF__phase-b__workflow_updates.md. RF template structure followed. Key Decisions documented. No placeholder content |
| 5 | Observations collected | ✅ | 2 observations — both real issues (verified: handoff.md and compilable_contract.md do contain old PhaseA references). Quality filter: these are genuine remaining drift, not filler |
| 6 | RF completeness (§6-8) | ✅ | §6 Fact Candidates: "No fact candidates." (present, empty = valid). §7 Strategic Insights: "No strategic insights." (valid for docs-only phase). §8 Diagrams: "No diagrams." (valid — no architecture/flow changes) |
Mode-Specific Checklist¶
| # | Check | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Content quality | ✅ | Both workflow files are clear, accurate, internally consistent. Template references are explicit (numbered file names). Plan.md Step 7 tree is readable. Multi-agent reference is exactly 1 sentence with cross-ref to conventions.md §4 |
| 8 | Source verification | ✅ | All claims traceable: RF §3 line references verified against actual file content. Deviations (Step 6c, RES, removal) justified in RF §2 Key Decisions with ONB/TS references |
Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md¶
| # | Knowledge item | RF claim | Contradiction? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | D38 (multi-iteration research) | Updated folder structure from researchN/ to research/iterN/ |
No — D38 established the principle, TFW-42 refactors the implementation |
| 2 | D48 (naming normalization) | PhaseA/ → phase-a/ in plan.md |
No — extends D48 to phase folder naming (consistent direction) |
No contradictions.
Checkpoint¶
Self-check: - [x] Every checklist item has evidence (not just ✅/❌)? - [x] Referenced verify.md findings in DoD assessment? - [x] Checked RF §6-8 for presence AND quality (not just existence)? - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md cross-referenced — contradictions documented or "None"? - [x] Fact Candidates from RF reviewed — any that need challenge?
Stage complete: YES