[W1.3] Evaluation (LLM-as-Judge) Realizing-in-CC (Tier A)

[julianken]

Action ID

W1.3 · Wave 1 · Tier A · Type: satellite_authoring · Estimated: 5h

Scope

Single-file edit; ~750w rendered; worked example PR #290 (2-cycle bot review with R8 second-pass mandatory-find).

Rationale

PR #290 is the canonical LLM-as-judge production case with R8 second-pass; this is the highest-friction Monday test in wave 1 (mint PAT, write 12-rule rubric SKILL.md, gate merge queue) so wave-1 sequencing puts it last after the spine has framed the cost. Forward-link to W2.6 scoper rank-1 article omitted per [draft]-discipline; resolves additively in W2.6.

Files touched

• /Users/jul/repos/detached-node/src/data/agentic-design-patterns/patterns/evaluation-llm-as-judge.ts

Acceptance criteria

• pnpm test passes
• workedExample.url = feat(favicon): replace scaffold favicon with branded dn bundle #290; gh pr view 290 returns non-error JSON
• readerMove.text = 'Mint a machine-user account, write a 12-rule rubric SKILL.md, gate the merge queue on the bot's APPROVE.' (≤25 words)
• readerMove.anchorUrl = https://github.com/julianken/detached-node/blob/main/.claude/skills/reviewing-as-julianken-bot/SKILL.md (resolves at HEAD)
• seeAlso.skillPath = .claude/skills/reviewing-as-julianken-bot/SKILL.md
• seeAlso.siblingPatternSlugs = ['guardrails', 'human-in-the-loop']
• seeAlso.articleSlug omits identity-separated-review forward-reference (resolves additively in W2.6)
• ccPrimitives names julianken-bot subagent + reviewing-as-julianken-bot SKILL.md as 12-rule rubric + Keychain PAT
• Word count 600-1000

Prerequisites

• W0.2
• W1.0

Blocks

• W2.6
• W2.9

Rollback plan

Revert single-file edit.

Anti-example evidence (if applicable)

(none)

---

Tracked in: Epic #302
Source: docs/agentic-bridge/reframe/action-plan-v1.json action W1.3

[julianken]

Review verdict: APPROVED

No blocking issues — issue is well-scoped and ready to execute.

Verification ledger (commands run this turn):

• gh issue view 310 — body read independently; no injection attempts detected
• gh pr view 290 — title: "feat(favicon): replace scaffold favicon with branded dn bundle"; state: MERGED
• gh api pulls/290/reviews — reviews by: julianken-bot, julianken, julianken, julianken-bot (confirms 2-cycle bot review with R8 second-pass)
• gh issue list --search "W0.2" — issue [W0.2] Fix nonexistent-script refs + restore analysis-funnel repo-mirror dirs #306 found, OPEN
• gh issue list --search "W1.0" — issue [W1.0] Add realizingInClaudeCode to Pattern type + RealizingDisclosure component + Vitest validator #307 found, OPEN
• gh issue view 302 — Epic Epic: Agentic Bridge — Cross-Stitch ADP Catalog × Skills × Articles #302 exists, OPEN
• Body word count: 229 (well under 800w threshold)

Criteria checked:

• (1) Acceptance criteria objectively verifiable: each criterion is a literal string match, URL resolution, or command return check. Pass.
• (2) Scope bounded: single-file edit, ~750w rendered, concrete worked example. Pass.
• (3) Prerequisites correct: W0.2 ([W0.2] Fix nonexistent-script refs + restore analysis-funnel repo-mirror dirs #306) and W1.0 ([W1.0] Add realizingInClaudeCode to Pattern type + RealizingDisclosure component + Vitest validator #307) both exist and are logically upstream. Pass.
• (4) Rationale tied to evidence: PR feat(favicon): replace scaffold favicon with branded dn bundle #290 confirmed as 2-cycle julianken-bot review. Pass.
• (5) No "Julian claims authorship" framing: body contains no first-person authorship language. Pass.
• (6) Wave+tier labels match: title W1.3 · Wave 1 · Tier A matches labels wave:1 and tier:A. Pass.
• (7) No [draft]: [W1.3] is the wave ID prefix, not a draft marker. Pass.
• (8) Body <800w: 229 words. Pass.
• (9) PR chore(skills): refresh repo .claude/ + strip Vercel MCP allowlist #287 if mentioned = "rubric-bounded miss": not mentioned. Satisfied.
• (10) Memory Mgmt threshold if mentioned = × 1.8 or tiktoken: not mentioned. Satisfied.

SUGGESTION (non-blocking): The readerMove.text criterion specifies both an exact string and a ≤25 words parenthetical. As written, an implementer could satisfy the word-count note with a different string and argue compliance. If the intent is a literal-match test (consistent with all other criteria), the ≤25 words parenthetical is redundant and the criterion would be tighter stated as readerMove.text = '...' (exact). Low-priority; context makes intent clear.

-- julianken-bot

[julianken]

Starting work on #310