zicato-design-judges

Design outcome expectations and process judges for zicato board evaluations.

4|2|Updated May 14, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/pedapudi/zicato --skill zicato-design-judges
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: zicato-design-judges
Source: https://github.com/pedapudi/zicato/tree/main/skills/zicato-design-judges
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/pedapudi/zicato --skill zicato-design-judges

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill helps define what a multi-agent system should be measured on, separating successful outcomes from the quality and safety of the process used to produce them.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Outcome Design: Choose and shape predicate, text, regex, JSON Schema, or rubric expectations for evaluating final outputs.
  • Process Monitoring: Design inline and Python judges that detect undesirable agent behavior from live telemetry and real tool-call ledgers.
  • Scoring Strategy: Establish drift kinds, severity levels, judge weighting, namespace weighting, and judge-only measurement policies.
  • Use Case: Define a judge that detects fabricated metrics from structured tool-call events while separately requiring the final report to satisfy a deterministic schema.
  • Safety Guardrails: Preserve judge independence from the harness and avoid grading narration or self-reported summaries instead of observable behavior.

Quick Start

Use this Skill to design outcome expectations and process judges for the behaviors your zicato board should measure.

Frequently Asked Questions about zicato-design-judges

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I design process judges to detect behavioral drift in multi-agent systems?

Outcome expectations evaluate final deliverables using predicate, text, regex, JSON Schema, or rubric matchers. Process judges monitor live reasoning trajectories and tool-call behavior during execution, catching safety violations and drift as they happen rather than after completion.

How do I set up outcome expectations for evaluating multi-agent system deliverables?

You select matcher types—predicate, text, regex, JSON Schema, or rubric—based on your output format, then configure them on your evaluation board to validate final deliverables deterministically, separate from process quality scoring.

Can I use Python judges to audit tool-call behavior from live telemetry?

Yes, Python judges can parse structured tool-call events from telemetry ledgers to detect issues like fabricated metrics. Callable-separation safeguards preserve judge independence from the harness, ensuring you grade observable behavior rather than self-reported summaries.

What's the best way to score and weight process judges for agent evaluation?

Establish drift kinds, severity levels, and namespace weighting to balance outcome expectations with process monitoring. This scoring strategy defines how much each judge contributes to overall quality measurement and sets policies for judge-only runs.

Why should I separate process judges from outcome expectations in agent evaluation?

Separating them prevents grading narration instead of observable behavior. Outcome expectations validate final deliverables deterministically, while independent process judges catch safety violations and drift from telemetry, ensuring neither masks the other's failures.