Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

resolve-dispute

Resolves stuck review findings via a put-up-or-concede exchange. Invoked by the facilitator when a finding survives arbitration without new evidence.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md1.7 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

A review finding is stuck. Structure its resolution in three steps.

Step 1 — Frame the dispute. Identify and state aloud:

  • The disputed finding (one sentence)
  • Who holds it
  • The facilitator's prior arbitration ruling (one sentence)

Step 2 — Send the reviewer this message, substituting [finding] with the actual finding:

Your finding — [finding] — was arbitrated. To keep it open, you must provide ONE of: (a) A concrete failure scenario: specific inputs or conditions that produce wrong behavior (b) A source citation: file, line number, and what it shows (c) A direct counterexample to the arbitration reasoning

One response. No response counts as concession. After that, the facilitator rules and the finding is DECIDED.

Step 3 — Rule and tag.

After the reviewer responds:

  • Evidence present → the facilitator evaluates it on the merits and rules. Tag the finding DECIDED regardless of outcome.
  • No evidence → the facilitator tags DECIDED, asks the reviewer to re-score.
  • No response → the facilitator tags DECIDED.

DECIDED findings cannot be re-raised without new substance. This enforces the existing "Don't regurgitate decided points" rule.

What this skill must not do:

  • Override a finding backed by real evidence
  • Auto-resolve — the facilitator still decides after hearing the evidence
  • Apply to first-round disagreements — use normal arbitration first
  • Suppress legitimate concerns — evidence always reopens the door

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Evaluates ambient context artifacts (CLAUDE.md, memory, local skills, settings hooks) for compatibility with swarm governance. Returns a classified report so users can address interference before launching a team.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

DheerG/swarms85Updated Jul 23, 2026

Code mode operational spec for the team lead. Returns lead identity, facilitator identity, mode-specific rules, suggest-members guidance, and phase arc for code-mode teams.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

DheerG/swarms85Updated Jul 23, 2026

Builds measurable validation criteria when no existing standards apply. Invoked by team agents during review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

DheerG/swarms85Updated Jul 23, 2026

Returns the frozen gate constants — question, header, option labels and descriptions, digest field-list, and preview content — for every catalog gate. Invoked by the team lead fresh on arrival at each gate and on pulse re-emissions, in the same turn as the render. The transport contract, three renders, partition rule, and authoring rubric live in swarm:workflow-rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

DheerG/swarms85Updated Jul 23, 2026

General mode operational spec for the team lead. Returns lead identity, facilitator identity, suggest-members guidance, and phase arc for general-purpose teams. The silent fallback when outcomes fit no specific mode, and a wrapper base for custom workflows — it has no shortcut command.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

DheerG/swarms85Updated Jul 23, 2026

Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer that fails differently from the authors, run to clean — distinct from the recursive-refinement ladder. Invoked by the team lead from the unified pre-ship gate (code-mode and /swarm:refine) after the ship steps.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

DheerG/swarms85Updated Jul 23, 2026

See all skills by DheerG

Report a problem with this skill