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 upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate --skill judgment-daygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplateWrote 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/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/judgment-day)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/judgment-day"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/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/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/judgment-day"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/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 | $0.00033 | $0.01241 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00620 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00124 |
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 10d 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Activation Contract
Load this skill only when the user explicitly asks for Judgment Day, dual/adversarial review, or equivalent Spanish trigger (juzgar, que lo juzguen). Review a specific target: files, feature, PR, or architecture slice.
Within this QA boilerplate, this skill is cited as an OPTIONAL adversarial augmentation by:
/test-automation— Review phase for high-risk test changes/git-flow-master— pre-PR gate when the diff is large or touches shared fixtures / base classes/framework-development— pre-archive review of framework evolution diffs
It is never invoked automatically. Users opt in via explicit trigger.
Inputs — read these first, in this order
Canonical reading order for any AI starting cold on a Judgment Day review. Read in order; stop earlier when the target is small enough that later inputs add no signal.
- The diff / files / PR / architecture slice under review — the literal target the user named.
AGENTS.md— repo conventions, Critical Rules, behavioral layer (the judges must score against these, not generic best-practice)..agents/skills/REGISTRY.md— skill registry; resolve which project skills apply to the target's file paths + task type, and inject the sameSkills to load before workblock into both judge prompts.- The change's spec / PR description / Jira ticket — the stated intent. Judges score against intent, not their imagined intent.
references/prompts-and-formats.md— judge prompts, fix prompts, warning rubric, verdict table format.- Prior judge outputs from earlier rounds (Round 2+ only) — to detect regressions or stale findings vs. new ones.
Hard Rules
- Resolve project skills before launching agents: read skill registry, match skill paths by target files/task, and inject the same
Skills to load before workblock into both judge prompts and fix prompts. - Launch two blind judges in parallel with identical target and criteria; never review the code yourself.
- Wait for both judges before synthesis; never accept a partial verdict.
- Classify warnings as
WARNING (real)only if normal intended use can trigger them; otherwise downgrade to INFO asWARNING (theoretical). - Ask before fixing Round 1 confirmed issues.
- After any fix agent runs, immediately re-launch both judges in parallel before commit/push/done/session summary.
- Terminal states are only
JUDGMENT: APPROVEDorJUDGMENT: ESCALATED. - After 2 fix iterations with remaining issues, ask the user whether to continue.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 82 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 42e1c9e6d05b
judgment-day is a skill published in the GitHub repository upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate (21 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,241 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
orchestrated-execution
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…
testing-anti-patterns
Reviews test code to identify and fix common testing anti-patterns including flaky tests, over-mocking, brittle assertions, test interdependency, and hidden test logic. Flags bad patterns, explains the specific defect, and provides corrected implementations. Use when reviewing test code, debugging intermittent or…