Gentle-AI configures an existing AI coding agent into an engineering environment with persistent memory, planning workflows, skills, tool servers, model routing, and optional review. Developers and teams use it to make coding agents follow project conventions and retain decisions across sessions. The catalogue entries are its skills, commands, agents, and instruction.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai --skill judgment-daygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-aiWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-ai/judgment-day)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-ai/judgment-day"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-ai/judgment-day/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-ai/judgment-day"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-ai/judgment-day.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00036 | $0.00813 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00325 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
judgment-day scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Activation Contract
Load only when the user explicitly requests Judgment Day or equivalent dual/adversarial review for a concrete target. Judgment Day is a standalone developer tool: judges run whenever asked, on any runtime, and need no review transaction, runtime identity, or delivery-receipt machinery to start. It replaces ordinary 4R as the adversarial method for that target; never run both.
Hard Rules
- Resolve matching project skills before starting and pass the same paths to both judges (
jd-judge-a,jd-judge-b) and the fix actor (jd-fix-agent). - Build one complete immutable target, then launch two blind read-only judges in parallel with identical scope and criteria.
- Each judge returns one neutral findings result and terminates. Wait for both; never accept a partial judgment.
- Never launch
review-refuter; two-judge agreement is the corroboration mechanism. - Only the parent orchestrator merges/persists findings, launches the fix actor (
jd-fix-agent), and launches scoped re-judgment. - Fix only severe findings confirmed by both judges. WARNING/SUGGESTION rows remain
info. - Permit at most two fix rounds and two scoped re-judgments. Re-judgment sees only the frozen ledger plus fix delta and may record fix-caused defects.
- The only terminal verdicts are
APPROVED | ESCALATED; never reset or extend an exhausted round budget. - A judgment issues no receipt and carries no delivery authority: it satisfies no commit, push, PR, or release gate. When the caller explicitly wants ordinary negotiated review for the same target, run it as its own step; neither outcome authorizes delivery, which remains under ordinary repository policy.
Decision Gates
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| Target unclear | Ask one scope question and stop. |
| Both judges confirm severe finding | Ask before round-one correction; then use the bounded fix actor. |
| One judge reports it | Record suspect; do not auto-fix. |
| Judges contradict | Escalate for explicit human decision. |
| Scoped re-judgment fails before round two | Parent may launch the final bounded fix round. |
| Any issue remains after round two | Escalate and stop. |
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 54 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A ac2a4fcfd762
judgment-day is a skill published in the GitHub repository Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai (8,040 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 813 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
new-track
Start a new feature or bug track. Collaborative intake process with structured questions, AI guidance, and progressive refinement before generating spec.md and plan.md. Use when the user asks to 'start a new track', 'create a feature track', 'add a bug fix track', or says 'I want to build X', 'fix the Y bug', 'plan a…
jira
Unified Jira entry point. Routes to preview (default), create, or review subcommands.
coverage
Compute code coverage for active track or module. Targets 95%+ coverage with report and justification for uncovered lines. Complements TDD workflow.
adr
Create and manage Architecture Decision Records. Documents significant technical decisions with context, alternatives, and consequences. Also supports evaluate (assess proposals) and design (system design) modes.
deploy-checklist
Pre-deployment verification checklist. Generates customized checklists based on tech-stack with rollback triggers. Auto-invoked by /draft:upload.
change
Handle mid-track requirement changes. Analyzes impact on completed and pending tasks, proposes amendments to spec.md and plan.md before applying.