Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

Description

@AlexMikhalev

Summary

Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

Motivation

Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

Current State

Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
|
v (if fail)
Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
|
v (if disagree)
Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail

Proposed State

Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
|
v (if any dimension below threshold)
Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
|
v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
|
v
Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded

Six Scoring Dimensions

  1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
  2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
  3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
  4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
  5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
  6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

Escalation Logic

Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

  • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
  • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
  • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

Feedback Loop (Future)

Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

  • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
  • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
  • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

Schema Extension

Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

{
"dimensions": {
"reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
"context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
"freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
"authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
"signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
"utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
},
"escalated": false,
"escalation_reason": null
}

Affected Components

  • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
  • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
  • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
  • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

Dependencies

Estimated Effort

~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all \u003cpre\u003e\u003ccode\u003e blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "github.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
      Skip to content

      Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

      Description

      @AlexMikhalev

      Summary

      Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

      Motivation

      Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

      Current State

      Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
      |
      v (if fail)
      Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
      |
      v (if disagree)
      Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail
      

      Proposed State

      Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
      |
      v (if any dimension below threshold)
      Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
      |
      v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
      Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
      |
      v
      Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded
      

      Six Scoring Dimensions

      1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
      2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
      3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
      4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
      5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
      6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

      Escalation Logic

      Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

      • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
      • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
      • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

      Feedback Loop (Future)

      Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

      • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
      • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
      • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

      This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

      Schema Extension

      Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

      {
      "dimensions": {
      "reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
      "context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
      "freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
      "authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
      "signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
      "utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
      },
      "escalated": false,
      "escalation_reason": null
      }

      Affected Components

      • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
      • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
      • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
      • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

      Dependencies

      Estimated Effort

      ~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

      Activity

      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

      Metadata

      Metadata

      Assignees

      No one assigned

        Type

        No type

        Projects

        No projects

          Milestone

          No milestone

          Relationships

          None yet

          Development

          No branches or pull requests

          Issue actions

          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
          Skip to content

          Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

          Description

          @AlexMikhalev

          Summary

          Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

          Motivation

          Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

          Current State

          Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
          |
          v (if fail)
          Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
          |
          v (if disagree)
          Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail
          

          Proposed State

          Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
          |
          v (if any dimension below threshold)
          Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
          |
          v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
          Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
          |
          v
          Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded
          

          Six Scoring Dimensions

          1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
          2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
          3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
          4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
          5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
          6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

          Escalation Logic

          Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

          • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
          • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
          • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

          Feedback Loop (Future)

          Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

          • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
          • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
          • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

          This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

          Schema Extension

          Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

          {
          "dimensions": {
          "reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
          "context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
          "freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
          "authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
          "signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
          "utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
          },
          "escalated": false,
          "escalation_reason": null
          }

          Affected Components

          • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
          • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
          • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
          • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

          Dependencies

          Estimated Effort

          ~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

          Activity

          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

          Metadata

          Metadata

          Assignees

          No one assigned

            Type

            No type

            Projects

            No projects

              Milestone

              No milestone

              Relationships

              None yet

              Development

              No branches or pull requests

              Issue actions

              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length \u003e 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
              Skip to content

              Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

              Description

              @AlexMikhalev

              Summary

              Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

              Motivation

              Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

              Current State

              Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
              |
              v (if fail)
              Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
              |
              v (if disagree)
              Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail
              

              Proposed State

              Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
              |
              v (if any dimension below threshold)
              Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
              |
              v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
              Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
              |
              v
              Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded
              

              Six Scoring Dimensions

              1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
              2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
              3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
              4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
              5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
              6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

              Escalation Logic

              Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

              • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
              • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
              • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

              Feedback Loop (Future)

              Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

              • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
              • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
              • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

              This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

              Schema Extension

              Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

              {
              "dimensions": {
              "reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
              "context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
              "freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
              "authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
              "signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
              "utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
              },
              "escalated": false,
              "escalation_reason": null
              }

              Affected Components

              • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
              • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
              • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
              • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

              Dependencies

              Estimated Effort

              ~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

              Activity

              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

              Metadata

              Metadata

              Assignees

              No one assigned

                Type

                No type

                Projects

                No projects

                  Milestone

                  No milestone

                  Relationships

                  None yet

                  Development

                  No branches or pull requests

                  Issue actions

                  , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
                  Skip to content

                  Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

                  Description

                  @AlexMikhalev

                  Summary

                  Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

                  Motivation

                  Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

                  Current State

                  Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
                  |
                  v (if fail)
                  Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
                  |
                  v (if disagree)
                  Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail
                  

                  Proposed State

                  Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
                  |
                  v (if any dimension below threshold)
                  Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
                  |
                  v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
                  Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
                  |
                  v
                  Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded
                  

                  Six Scoring Dimensions

                  1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
                  2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
                  3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
                  4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
                  5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
                  6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

                  Escalation Logic

                  Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

                  • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
                  • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
                  • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

                  Feedback Loop (Future)

                  Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

                  • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
                  • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
                  • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

                  This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

                  Schema Extension

                  Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

                  {
                  "dimensions": {
                  "reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
                  "context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
                  "freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
                  "authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
                  "signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
                  "utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
                  },
                  "escalated": false,
                  "escalation_reason": null
                  }

                  Affected Components

                  • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
                  • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
                  • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
                  • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

                  Dependencies

                  Estimated Effort

                  ~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

                  Activity

                  Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                  Metadata

                  Metadata

                  Assignees

                  No one assigned

                    Type

                    No type

                    Projects

                    No projects

                      Milestone

                      No milestone

                      Relationships

                      None yet

                      Development

                      No branches or pull requests

                      Issue actions

                      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
                      Skip to content

                      Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

                      Description

                      @AlexMikhalev

                      Summary

                      Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

                      Motivation

                      Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

                      Current State

                      Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
                      |
                      v (if fail)
                      Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
                      |
                      v (if disagree)
                      Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail
                      

                      Proposed State

                      Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
                      |
                      v (if any dimension below threshold)
                      Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
                      |
                      v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
                      Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
                      |
                      v
                      Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded
                      

                      Six Scoring Dimensions

                      1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
                      2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
                      3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
                      4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
                      5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
                      6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

                      Escalation Logic

                      Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

                      • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
                      • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
                      • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

                      Feedback Loop (Future)

                      Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

                      • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
                      • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
                      • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

                      This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

                      Schema Extension

                      Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

                      {
                      "dimensions": {
                      "reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
                      "context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
                      "freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
                      "authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
                      "signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
                      "utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
                      },
                      "escalated": false,
                      "escalation_reason": null
                      }

                      Affected Components

                      • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
                      • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
                      • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
                      • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

                      Dependencies

                      Estimated Effort

                      ~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

                      Activity

                      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                      Metadata

                      Metadata

                      Assignees

                      No one assigned

                        Type

                        No type

                        Projects

                        No projects

                          Milestone

                          No milestone

                          Relationships

                          None yet

                          Development

                          No branches or pull requests

                          Issue actions

                          , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
                          Skip to content

                          Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

                          Description

                          @AlexMikhalev

                          Summary

                          Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

                          Motivation

                          Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

                          Current State

                          Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
                          |
                          v (if fail)
                          Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
                          |
                          v (if disagree)
                          Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail
                          

                          Proposed State

                          Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
                          |
                          v (if any dimension below threshold)
                          Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
                          |
                          v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
                          Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
                          |
                          v
                          Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded
                          

                          Six Scoring Dimensions

                          1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
                          2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
                          3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
                          4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
                          5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
                          6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

                          Escalation Logic

                          Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

                          • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
                          • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
                          • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

                          Feedback Loop (Future)

                          Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

                          • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
                          • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
                          • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

                          This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

                          Schema Extension

                          Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

                          {
                          "dimensions": {
                          "reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
                          "context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
                          "freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
                          "authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
                          "signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
                          "utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
                          },
                          "escalated": false,
                          "escalation_reason": null
                          }

                          Affected Components

                          • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
                          • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
                          • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
                          • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

                          Dependencies

                          Estimated Effort

                          ~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

                          Activity

                          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                          Metadata

                          Metadata

                          Assignees

                          No one assigned

                            Type

                            No type

                            Projects

                            No projects

                              Milestone

                              No milestone

                              Relationships

                              None yet

                              Development

                              No branches or pull requests

                              Issue actions

                              , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
                              Skip to content

                              Dimensional verdict scoring for multi-model judge (Meta-Ralph pattern) #600

                              Description

                              @AlexMikhalev

                              Summary

                              Replace binary pass/fail verdicts in the multi-model judge system with 6-dimensional continuous scoring. Each judge tier produces a score vector instead of a single verdict, enabling nuanced escalation decisions and feedback loops.

                              Motivation

                              Inspired by vibeship-spark-intelligence Meta-Ralph quality gating pattern. Current judge system uses 3-tier binary verdicts (pass/fail). Meta-Ralph scores across 6 dimensions with configurable thresholds.

                              Current State

                              Tier 1 (quick): pass/fail
                              |
                              v (if fail)
                              Tier 2 (deep): pass/fail
                              |
                              v (if disagree)
                              Tier 3 (tiebreaker): pass/fail
                              

                              Proposed State

                              Tier 1 (quick): [reliability: 0.7, context_fit: 0.9, freshness: 0.8, ...]
                              |
                              v (if any dimension below threshold)
                              Tier 2 (deep): [reliability: 0.85, context_fit: 0.6, freshness: 0.9, ...]
                              |
                              v (if dimensions conflict across tiers)
                              Tier 3 (tiebreaker): [reliability: 0.9, context_fit: 0.8, freshness: 0.95, ...]
                              |
                              v
                              Final verdict: weighted aggregate across all tiers that responded
                              

                              Six Scoring Dimensions

                              1. Reliability -- How often has this type of finding been validated in past verdicts?
                              2. Context fit -- How relevant is the finding to the specific code being reviewed?
                              3. Freshness -- Is the finding based on current patterns or stale heuristics?
                              4. Authority -- How credible is the source model for this type of finding?
                              5. Signal strength -- Confidence in the signal (strong evidence vs. weak heuristic)
                              6. Utility -- How actionable is the finding? (specific fix vs. vague warning)

                              Escalation Logic

                              Replace binary escalation with dimensional:

                              • Escalate when any dimension drops below tier-specific threshold (not just overall pass/fail)
                              • Skip escalation when all dimensions are above threshold even if one tier "failed" on a specific finding
                              • Aggregate final verdict as weighted average across tiers, with later tiers weighted higher on dimensions where earlier tiers scored low

                              Feedback Loop (Future)

                              Track whether findings were acted on (follow-rate):

                              • Finding surfaced -> developer fixed issue -> positive signal
                              • Finding surfaced -> developer dismissed -> negative signal
                              • Over time, adjust per-dimension weights based on follow-rate

                              This requires #597 (event sourcing) for tracking.

                              Schema Extension

                              Extend automation/judge/verdict-schema.json:

                              {
                              "dimensions": {
                              "reliability": { "score": 0.85, "threshold": 0.7 },
                              "context_fit": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.6 },
                              "freshness": { "score": 0.8, "threshold": 0.5 },
                              "authority": { "score": 0.7, "threshold": 0.6 },
                              "signal_strength": { "score": 0.6, "threshold": 0.5 },
                              "utility": { "score": 0.9, "threshold": 0.7 }
                              },
                              "escalated": false,
                              "escalation_reason": null
                              }

                              Affected Components

                              • automation/judge/verdict-schema.json (extend schema)
                              • automation/judge/pre-push-judge.sh (update prompt to request dimensional scores)
                              • Judge prompt templates (instruct models to score per dimension)
                              • terraphim-skills judge plan (plans/terraphim-skills-judge.md)

                              Dependencies

                              Estimated Effort

                              ~4 hours for schema + prompt changes. Feedback loop integration is a follow-up after #597.

                              Activity

                              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

                              Metadata

                              Metadata

                              Assignees

                              No one assigned

                                Type

                                No type

                                Projects

                                No projects

                                  Milestone

                                  No milestone

                                  Relationships

                                  None yet

                                  Development

                                  No branches or pull requests

                                  Issue actions