MCPInstall

llm-judge

Use when comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on "which repo is better", "compare these implementations", "evaluate both solutions", "rank these codebases", or "judge which approach wins". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality — use code review skills instead. Does NOT evaluate strategy docs — use strategy-review. Requires a spec file and 2+ repo paths.

Installs
135
Last 24h
—
Trending rank
—
Security
Not audited

Install

Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.

npx skills add https://github.com/existential-birds/beagle --skill llm-judge
  1. 01

    Install

    Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.

  2. 02

    Describe the task

    Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads llm-judge automatically when relevant.

  3. 03

    Review the result

    The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.

SKILL.md

The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.

LLM Judge

Compare code implementations across multiple repositories using structured evaluation.

Usage

llm-judge <spec> <repo1> <repo2> [repo3...] [--labels=...] [--weights=...] [--branch=...]

Arguments

ArgumentRequiredDescription
specYesPath to spec/requirements document
reposYes2+ paths to repositories to compare
--labelsNoComma-separated labels (default: directory names)
--weightsNoOverride weights, e.g. functionality:40,security:30
--branchNoBranch to compare against main (default: main)

Workflow

  1. Parse $ARGUMENTS into spec_path, repo_paths, labels, weights, and branch.
  2. Validate the spec file, each repo path, and the minimum repo count.
  3. Read the spec document into memory.
  4. Load this skill and the supporting reference files.
  5. Gather facts per repository (one Phase 1 unit per repo) — facts only, no scoring.
  6. Validate the repo-agent JSON results before proceeding.
  7. Score each dimension (one Phase 2 unit per dimension).
  8. Aggregate scores, compute weighted totals, rank repos, and write the report.
  9. Display the markdown summary and verify the JSON report.

Hard gates

Sequenced workflow: do not start the next phase until the current gate passes. Each pass condition must be checkable (file on disk, non-empty content, or json.load succeeds)—not “I reviewed internally.”

GatePass conditionUnblocks
A — Inputsspec_path is a readable file and non-empty; len(repo_paths) ≥ 2; each path contains .git.Phase 1 repo agents
B — Phase 1 factsFor each repo agent output: stdin/stdout parses as JSON; required keys/shape match references/fact-schema.md.Phase 2 judge agents
C — Phase 2 scoresFive judge outputs (one per dimension) each parse as JSON; each includes a score (and justification) for every repo label.Aggregation
D — Report file.beagle/llm-judge-report.json exists; python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/llm-judge-report.json'))" exits 0.Markdown summary to the user
E — ConsistencySummary table and verdict use the same labels, weights, and per-dimension scores as the JSON report.Mark task complete

Parallelism is allowed within a phase (all Phase 1 tasks together; all Phase 2 tasks together), but Phase 2 must not start until Gate B passes, and the user-visible summary must not precede Gate D.

Command Workflow

Step 1: Parse Arguments

Parse $ARGUMENTS to extract:

  • spec_path: first positional argument
  • repo_paths: remaining positional arguments (must be 2+)
  • labels: from --labels or derived from directory names
  • weights: from --weights or defaults
  • branch: from --branch or main

Default Weights:

{
  "functionality": 30,
  "security": 25,
  "tests": 20,
  "overengineering": 15,
  "dead_code": 10
}

Step 2: Validate Inputs

[ -f "$SPEC_PATH" ] || { echo "Error: Spec file not found: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; }

for repo in "${REPO_PATHS[@]}"; do
  [ -d "$repo/.git" ] || { echo "Error: Not a git repository: $repo"; exit 1; }
done

[ ${#REPO_PATHS[@]} -ge 2 ] || { echo "Error: Need at least 2 repositories to compare"; exit 1; }

Step 3: Read Spec Document

SPEC_CONTENT=$(cat "$SPEC_PATH") || { echo "Error: Failed to read spec file: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; }
[ -z "$SPEC_CONTENT" ] && { echo "Error: Spec file is empty: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; }

Step 4: Load the Skill

Load this llm-judge skill and its reference files into context.

Step 5: Phase 1 - Gather Facts Per Repo

If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one Phase 1 repo agent per repository in parallel; otherwise run the same fact-gathering steps sequentially, one repo at a time — the output is identical either way. Give each unit this brief:

You are a Phase 1 Repo Agent for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Your Repo:** $LABEL at $REPO_PATH

**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Instructions:**
1. Load the **llm-judge** skill's references/repo-agent.md for detailed instructions
2. Follow references/fact-schema.md for the output format
3. Load the **llm-artifacts-detection** skill ([../../../beagle-core/skills/llm-artifacts-detection/SKILL.md](../../../beagle-core/skills/llm-artifacts-detection/SKILL.md), if available) for dead-code/overengineering analysis

Explore the repository and gather facts. Return ONLY valid JSON following the fact schema.

Do NOT score or judge. Only gather facts.

Collect all repo outputs into ALL_FACTS.

Step 6: Validate Phase 1 Results

echo "$FACTS" | python3 -c "import json,sys; json.load(sys.stdin)" 2>/dev/null || { echo "Error: Invalid JSON from $LABEL"; exit 1; }

Step 7: Phase 2 - Score Per Dimension

If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one judge agent per dimension (five total) in parallel; otherwise score each dimension sequentially — identical output. Give each unit this brief:

You are the $DIMENSION Judge for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Facts from all repos:**
$ALL_FACTS_JSON

**Instructions:**
1. Load the **llm-judge** skill's references/judge-agents.md for detailed instructions
2. Follow references/scoring-rubrics.md for the $DIMENSION rubric

Score each repo on $DIMENSION. Return ONLY valid JSON with scores and justifications.

Step 8: Aggregate Scores

for repo_label in labels:
    scores[repo_label] = {}
    for dimension in dimensions:
        scores[repo_label][dimension] = judge_outputs[dimension]['scores'][repo_label]

    weighted_total = sum(
        scores[repo_label][dim]['score'] * weights[dim] / 100
        for dim in dimensions
    )
    scores[repo_label]['weighted_total'] = round(weighted_total, 2)

ranking = sorted(labels, key=lambda l: scores[l]['weighted_total'], reverse=True)

Step 9: Generate Verdict

Name the winner, explain why they won, and note any close calls or trade-offs.

Step 10: Write JSON Report

mkdir -p .beagle

Write .beagle/llm-judge-report.json with version, timestamp, repo metadata, weights, scores, ranking, and verdict.

Step 11: Display Summary

Render a markdown summary with the scores table, ranking, verdict, and detailed justifications.

Step 12: Verification

python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/llm-judge-report.json'))" && echo "Valid report"

Output Shape

The generated report should include:

  • repo labels and paths
  • per-dimension scores and justifications
  • weighted totals and ranking
  • a verdict explaining the winner

Reference Files

FilePurpose
references/fact-schema.mdJSON schema for Phase 1 facts
references/scoring-rubrics.mdDetailed rubrics for each dimension
references/repo-agent.mdInstructions for Phase 1 agents
references/judge-agents.mdInstructions for Phase 2 judges

Scoring Model

DimensionDefault WeightEvaluates
Functionality30%Spec compliance, test pass rate
Security25%Vulnerabilities, security patterns
Test Quality20%Coverage, DRY, mock boundaries
Overengineering15%Unnecessary complexity
Dead Code10%Unused code, TODOs

Scoring Scale

ScoreMeaning
5Excellent - Exceeds expectations
4Good - Meets requirements, minor issues
3Average - Functional but notable gaps
2Below Average - Significant issues
1Poor - Fails basic requirements

Phase 1: Gathering Facts Per Repo

For each repository (in parallel via subagents if supported, otherwise sequentially), run a fact-gathering unit with:

You are a Phase 1 Repo Agent for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Your Repo:** $REPO_LABEL at $REPO_PATH
**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Instructions:** Follow the **llm-judge** skill's references/repo-agent.md

Gather facts and return a JSON object following the schema in references/fact-schema.md.

Load the **llm-artifacts-detection** skill ([../../../beagle-core/skills/llm-artifacts-detection/SKILL.md](../../../beagle-core/skills/llm-artifacts-detection/SKILL.md), if available) for dead code and overengineering analysis.

Return ONLY valid JSON, no markdown or explanations.

Collect all repo-agent outputs into ALL_FACTS.

Phase 2: Scoring Per Dimension

After all Phase 1 facts are collected, score the five dimensions (in parallel via subagents if supported, otherwise sequentially), one unit per dimension:

You are the $DIMENSION Judge for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Facts from all repos:**
$ALL_FACTS_JSON

**Instructions:** Follow the **llm-judge** skill's references/judge-agents.md

Score each repo on $DIMENSION using the rubric in references/scoring-rubrics.md.

Return ONLY valid JSON following the judge output schema.

Aggregation

  1. Collect the five judge outputs.
  2. Compute each repo's weighted total with the configured weights.
  3. Rank repos by weighted total in descending order.
  4. Generate a verdict that explains the result and any close calls.
  5. Write .beagle/llm-judge-report.json.

Output

Display a markdown summary with scores, ranking, verdict, and detailed justifications.

Verification

Before completing (maps to Hard gates D and E):

  1. Gate D: .beagle/llm-judge-report.json exists and json.load succeeds.
  2. Gate E / completeness: Every repo label has scores for every dimension; each weighted_total equals the sum over dimensions of (score × weight / 100) using the configured weights; markdown summary matches the JSON report.

Rules

  • Always validate inputs before proceeding
  • Complete all Phase 1 fact-gathering before any Phase 2 scoring (parallel within a phase if subagents are supported, otherwise sequential)
  • Run one Phase 2 unit per dimension
  • Every score must have a justification
  • Write the JSON report before displaying the summary

FAQ

What does the llm-judge skill do?

Use when comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on "which repo is better", "compare these implementations", "evaluate both solutions", "rank these codebases", or "judge which approach wins". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality — use code review skills instead. Does NOT evaluate strategy docs — use strategy-review. Requires a spec file and 2+ repo paths.

How do I install llm-judge?

Run npx skills add https://github.com/existential-birds/beagle --skill llm-judge in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/llm-judge/ (personal) or .claude/skills/llm-judge/ (project).

Which AI agents can use llm-judge?

Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.

Is llm-judge safe to install?

No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.

Who maintains llm-judge?

It is published by existential-birds in existential-birds/beagle. It has 135 recorded installs.

More from existential-birds/beagle

View all →

react-flow

existential-birds/beagle

React Flow (@xyflow/react) for workflow visualization with custom nodes and edges. Use when building graph visualizations, creating custom workflow nodes, implementing edge labels, or controlling viewport. Triggers on ReactFlow, @xyflow/react, Handle, NodeProps, EdgeProps, useReactFlow, fitView.

Frontend & Design1.3K installs

python-code-review

existential-birds/beagle

Reviews Python code for type safety, async patterns, error handling, and common mistakes. Use when reviewing .py files, checking type hints, async/await usage, or exception handling.

langgraph-code-review

existential-birds/beagle

Reviews LangGraph code for bugs, anti-patterns, and improvements. Use when reviewing code that uses StateGraph, nodes, edges, checkpointing, or other LangGraph features. Catches common mistakes in state management, graph structure, and async patterns.

tailwind-v4

existential-birds/beagle

Tailwind CSS v4 with CSS-first configuration and design tokens. Use when setting up Tailwind v4, defining theme variables, using OKLCH colors, or configuring dark mode. Triggers on @theme, @tailwindcss/vite, oklch, CSS variables, --color-, tailwind v4.

Frontend & Design812 installs

react-flow-advanced

existential-birds/beagle

Advanced React Flow patterns for complex use cases. Use when implementing sub-flows, custom connection lines, programmatic layouts, drag-and-drop, undo/redo, or complex state synchronization.

Frontend & Design631 installs

react-router-v7

existential-birds/beagle

React Router v7 best practices for data-driven routing. Use when implementing routes, loaders, actions, Form components, fetchers, navigation guards, protected routes, or URL search params. Triggers on createBrowserRouter, RouterProvider, useLoaderData, useActionData, useFetcher, NavLink, Outlet.

Frontend & Design573 installs

Popular code quality & workflow skills

View category →

grill-me

mattpocock/skills

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.

Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

handoff

mattpocock/skills

Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.

domain-modeling

mattpocock/skills

Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing codebase terminology, writing or editing a GLOSSARY.md, or recording or editing an ADR.

codebase-design

mattpocock/skills

Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.

diagnosing-bugs

mattpocock/skills

Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.