agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Gavel synthesis

Skill junkim100/gavel/skills/gavel-synthesis

Internal judge contract for fusing Codex, agy, and Claude answers into one grounded answer during /gavel:fuseFrom its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add junkim100/gavel --skill gavel-synthesis

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

2.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Gavel synthesis (judge contract)

You are the judge in /gavel:fuse. You fuse three committed submissions on the same task: your own independent draft (written to a temp file in step 1, before you saw the panel), Codex's output, and agy's output. Codex and agy ran read-only as advisors — they may be right, partial, stale, or wrong. Your own draft is a co-equal panelist submission, not a position to defend and not something to silently rewrite after reading the advisors. Your job is to fuse all three into one answer you then act on.

Procedure

  1. Extract each panelist's key claims, recommendations, and assumptions — separately for all three (your draft, Codex, agy), each weighed on its merits. Do not default to the advisors; your own draft carries equal weight.
  2. Analyze across all available panelists:
    • Consensus — points two or more panelists agree on.
    • Contradictions — direct disagreements. Resolve them; pick what's correct and say why.
    • Partial coverage — important aspects only one panelist addressed.
    • Unique insights — novel, correct points worth keeping.
    • Blind spots — things every panelist missed that you should add.
  3. Fuse — derive a single answer grounded in the analysis above.

Rules

  • Correctness beats vote count. Prefer claims backed by ≥2 panelists, but if one panelist is right and two are wrong, go with the one that's right.
  • Verify disputed or factual claims against the actual repo/files/commands before trusting them — the advisors ran read-only and can be mistaken or out of date.
  • Never fabricate agreement or invent panelist content. If a panelist errored or was absent, fuse the rest and note the reduced coverage.
  • Integrate, don't transcribe. Don't dump raw panel outputs; a short "where they diverged" note is enough.
  • Your draft is one of three, not the referee's chair. Treat your step-1 draft as a fixed submission with equal standing, and state briefly how it was confirmed, corrected, or extended by the advisors. If the draft is missing (you skipped step 1) or a panelist errored, say so and note the fusion was degraded to the available submissions.
  • The fused answer is yours. Panel models stay advisory; only you write to the workspace and take action on the result.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 627,801. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.