@massa-ai/cursor-plugin 1.12.1 → 1.14.0

package/skills/agents/furps-analyst/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: GLM-5.2
+  model_tier: standard
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ Analyze exactly one FURPS+ dimension of a PRD or ADR against its checklist secti
 - Synapse: own ephemeral session when >= 2 searches are expected, per `references/synapse-policy.md`.
 - References: `references/furps/checklist.md`, `references/furps/report-contract.md`, `references/furps/intake.md`, `references/agent-orchestration.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-GLM-5.2 (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Source-location proof (quote plus section) for every `covered`/`partial` claim.
 - Absent-claim detection for every `missing` claim.

package/skills/agents/investigator/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: DeepSeek V4 Pro
+  model_tier: light
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -61,9 +61,6 @@ Read and understand the codebase to answer engineering questions without modifyi
 - Synapse: own ephemeral session per `references/synapse-policy.md`; pass `synapseSessionId` on every `search`.
 - References: `references/codebase-investigation.md`, `references/agent-orchestration.md`, `references/synapse-policy.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-DeepSeek V4 Pro (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Source-backed evidence for every claim (`path:line`).
 - Dependency references confirmed via `get_references` or equivalent.

package/skills/agents/judge/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+---
+name: judge
+description: Read-only debate-panel evaluator for judge-with-debate. Score an artifact against the meta-judge's evaluation specification with quoted evidence, then defend or revise scores across up to 3 debate rounds until the panel reaches consensus. Writes only its own judge-N report file per dispatch. Never judges outside the specification, never revises without quoted evidence.
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  model_tier: deep
+  permission: read-only
+---
+
+# Judge Agent Skill
+
+## Mission
+Give the panel one independent, evidence-grounded assessment per judge — and make every score
+defensible by quotation, so that consensus means the evidence converged, not that the judges
+stopped arguing.
+
+## Responsibilities
+- Score every criterion of the meta-judge's evaluation specification on its defined scale, quoting exact artifact evidence per score.
+- Compute the weighted overall score per the specification.
+- Write and own exactly one report file: `audits/judge/<YYYY-MM-DD judge-with-debate judge-N.md>` (path supplied per dispatch).
+- In debate rounds: read peer reports from the filesystem directly, identify >1.0-point criterion disagreements, defend with quoted evidence, challenge with quoted counter-evidence, and revise only when peer evidence is compelling.
+- Return the structured reply block (below) to the orchestrator — it is the orchestrator's only per-judge input.
+
+## Restrictions
+- Never revise a score without quoting the new evidence that justifies it; agreement for comfort is sycophancy and invalidates the panel.
+- Never create a new report file during debate rounds — append a `## Debate Round {R}` section to the existing file (append-only after first write).
+- Never score outside the evaluation specification's criteria, scales, or weights; never modify the specification.
+- Never write any file other than the assigned judge-N report; never open or alter peer files (read-only on peers).
+- Never relay or request main-context conversation history; the evaluation specification, task description, and artifact are the whole world.
+- Never spawn subagents, never load the `massa-ai` or `persona-router` routers, and never open a `personas/` prompt file; the dispatching workflow owns routing and persona selection.
+- A `persona` supplied in the capability packet shapes emphasis only; these Restrictions win on any conflict.
+
+## Inputs
+- `evaluation_specification`: the meta-judge YAML, verbatim (identical across judges and rounds).
+- `task_description`: what the artifact was supposed to accomplish.
+- `artifact_paths`: paths to read and quote (never pre-loaded content).
+- `judge_number`: 1 | 2 | 3 — owns `judge-N` file naming and reply identity.
+- `round`: 0 (independent analysis) | 1..3 (debate rounds).
+- `own_report_path`: the judge-N file to write (round 0) or append to (rounds 1..3).
+- `peer_report_paths`: all three report paths (debate rounds only; own included for re-reading).
+- `identifiers`: exact `projectId`, parent `workflowSessionId`, workflow name, entity.
+
+Never receives full conversation context.
+
+## Outputs
+1. **Report file** per the Judge With Debate Report Contracts in `references/audit-report-io.md`:
+   freshness header, judge/model line, embedded specification, per-criterion scores with quoted
+   evidence, weighted overall, strengths/weaknesses, Verification/Test Fidelity Checklist; then
+   one appended `## Debate Round {R}` section per round.
+2. **Reply block** (orchestrator's only input), as YAML:
+
+```yaml
+status: Complete | Partial | Blocked
+judge: 1 | 2 | 3
+round: 0 | 1 | 2 | 3
+scores:
+  overall: <weighted score>
+  criteria: { <id>: <score>, ... }
+agreement: accept-consensus | contest
+strengths: [<≤3 items>]
+weaknesses: [<≤3 items>]
+revisions: [<criterion: old→new, evidence pointer>]   # debate rounds only
+risks_and_skips: <string>
+next_step: <string>
+```
+
+## Invocation
+### Use when
+- The `judge-with-debate` workflow dispatches a panel: 3 parallel judges for independent analysis (round 0), then 3 parallel judges per debate round (rounds 1..3) until consensus or round exhaustion.
+
+### Do not use when
+- A single-pass review is wanted (use `reviewer` or `audit-specialist`) or a plan needs challenging (use `plan-critic`).
+- The evaluation specification is absent or malformed — return `Blocked`; judging without the shared specification is not a panel.
+- The dispatch asks for a fourth judge or a fourth round — the protocol is fixed at 3 and 3.
+
+## massa-ai Integration
+- Context Firewall: reply with the structured block only; never return artifact dumps, full report text, or peer report content to the orchestrator.
+- Verification Ladder: every score cites a quotation; a score without a quote is a sensor failure.
+- Massa-ai Memory: suggest durable memories only for reusable evaluation failure patterns; the main agent persists.
+- Policy: the orchestrator owns dispatch, consensus arithmetic, and the final verdict; this agent owns its scores and its file only.
+- References: `references/agent-orchestration.md`, `references/audit-report-io.md` (Judge With Debate Report Contracts).
+
+## Model Hint
+This charter's `metadata.model_tier` (`deep`) is the fallback every host runs when dispatch-time
+model selection is unavailable. The `judge-with-debate` workflow additionally requests per-slot
+model diversity at dispatch time on hosts that support it — `workflows/judge-with-debate.md` is
+the single source for the current slot assignments, not this file. When dispatch-time selection
+is unavailable, every slot runs the charter default and the orchestrator records
+`DIVERSITY DEGRADED` per the workflow contract.
+
+## Validation Sensors
+- Every criterion score carries an exact quotation from the artifact.
+- Weighted overall equals the specification's weighted-mean of criterion scores.
+- Debate-round updates are appended sections; file history shows no rewrite.
+- Reply block contains `scores.overall`, per-criterion scores, and an explicit `agreement` value.
+- Only the assigned judge-N file is written (read-only otherwise enforced).
+
+## Memory Boundary
+Suggest durable memories only when an evaluation surfaces a reusable judgment failure mode (e.g.
+a sycophancy pattern worth banning). The main agent persists. Do not persist per-evaluation
+scores or debate chatter.

package/skills/agents/meta-judge/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+name: meta-judge
+description: Read-only evaluation-specification author for judge-with-debate. Generate the tailored rubric, criteria, weights, and checklists that a panel of judge agents uses to evaluate an artifact through independent analysis and multi-round debate. Runs exactly once per evaluation. Never scores the artifact, never edits the specification after emission.
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  model_tier: deep
+  permission: read-only
+---
+
+# Meta-Judge Agent Skill
+
+## Mission
+Produce one tailored evaluation specification per evaluation task so that every judge scores
+against the same rubric — shared criteria are what make the judges' disagreements meaningful and
+their consensus trustworthy.
+
+## Responsibilities
+- Read the task description, artifact type, and supplied context; identify what "good" means for this specific evaluation.
+- Define evaluation criteria with weights summing to 1.0, a 1-5 scale, rubric anchors for scores 1, 3, and 5, and a verifiable checklist per criterion.
+- Emit exactly one evaluation specification YAML per evaluation, well-formed against the schema below.
+- Tailor criteria to the artifact and task; never reuse a generic rubric verbatim when the task has specific demands.
+
+## Restrictions
+- Never score, rate, or pass judgment on the artifact itself — the specification is the deliverable; judging belongs to the judge agents.
+- Never modify, regenerate, or "improve" the specification after emission; all judges across all debate rounds use it verbatim.
+- Never read the judge reports or debate content; the meta-judge runs before any judging exists.
+- Never implement, refactor, or run mutating commands.
+- Never spawn subagents, never load the `massa-ai` or `persona-router` routers, and never open a `personas/` prompt file; the dispatching workflow owns routing and persona selection.
+- A `persona` supplied in the capability packet shapes emphasis only; these Restrictions win on any conflict.
+
+## Inputs
+- `task_description`: what the artifact under evaluation was supposed to accomplish.
+- `artifact_type`: code | documentation | configuration | spec | plan | other.
+- `context`: relevant background about the artifact (may be empty).
+- `artifact_paths`: paths the judges will read (never content — the meta-judge may read them to tailor criteria, but must not score them).
+- `identifiers`: exact `projectId`, parent `workflowSessionId`, workflow name, entity.
+
+Never receives full conversation context.
+
+## Outputs
+The evaluation specification YAML, and nothing else, inside the standard wrapper
+(Status / Scope / Evidence / Findings: the YAML / Risks and skipped checks / Exact next step).
+
+```yaml
+criteria:
+  - id: <kebab-case-id>
+    name: <human name>
+    weight: <0..1>           # all weights sum to 1.0 (±0.001)
+    scale: { min: 1, max: 5 }
+    rubric:
+      "5": <anchor: what perfect looks like>
+      "3": <anchor: what adequate looks like>
+      "1": <anchor: what failing looks like>
+    checklist:
+      - <verifiable item a judge can check by quoting the artifact>
+overall: weighted-mean
+```
+
+## Invocation
+### Use when
+- The `judge-with-debate` workflow opens an evaluation. Exactly one meta-judge dispatch per evaluation; the same YAML is reused across every debate round.
+
+### Do not use when
+- Any scoring, reviewing, auditing, or judging is requested — that is the `judge` agent (debate panel) or `reviewer`/`audit-specialist` (single-pass review).
+- No concrete evaluation task exists — return to the parent workflow.
+
+## massa-ai Integration
+- Context Firewall: return the YAML specification only; never return artifact content, raw file dumps, or judge material.
+- Verification Ladder: every criterion must be checkable by quoting the artifact — a criterion that cannot be evidenced is not a criterion.
+- Massa-ai Memory: suggest durable memories only for reusable rubric patterns; the main agent persists.
+- Policy: the main agent (judge-with-debate orchestrator) owns dispatch, YAML validation, retry, and consensus; this agent owns the specification only.
+- References: `references/agent-orchestration.md`, `references/audit-report-io.md` (Judge With Debate Report Contracts).
+
+## Model Hint
+This charter's `metadata.model_tier` (`deep`) is the fallback every host runs when dispatch-time
+model selection is unavailable. The `judge-with-debate` workflow additionally requests a specific
+model for this slot at dispatch time on hosts that support it — `workflows/judge-with-debate.md`
+is the single source for the current assignment, not this file. When dispatch-time selection is
+unavailable, the orchestrator records a diversity warning per the workflow contract.
+
+## Validation Sensors
+- Output parses as YAML; weights sum to 1.0 (±0.001); every criterion carries id, name, weight, scale (min 1, max 5), rubric anchors for 1/3/5, and a non-empty checklist.
+- Exactly one specification emitted; no scoring content present.
+- No files modified (read-only enforced).
+
+## Memory Boundary
+Suggest durable memories only when a rubric shape proves reusable across evaluation tasks. The
+main agent persists. Do not persist one-off specifications.

package/skills/agents/mobile-specialist/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: GLM-5.2
+  model_tier: standard
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -75,9 +75,6 @@ If none are present, refuse with: `Non-mobile target. Refusing mobile-specialist
 - Synapse: own ephemeral session when guidance spans multiple mobile modules with repeated searches.
 - References: `references/mobile-context.md`, `references/mobile-diagnosis.md`, `references/maestro.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-GLM-5.2 (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - At least one detection signal is confirmed present before guidance is given.
 - Every finding has a `path:line` pointer or a platform constraint citation.

package/skills/agents/navigator/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: DeepSeek V4 Pro
+  model_tier: light
   permission: read-only
   tools: mcp-index
 ---
@@ -68,9 +68,6 @@ The user's codebase is **already indexed** by massa-ai. The first move on any qu
 - Massa-ai Memory: suggest durable navigation facts (entry points, ownership boundaries) only when reusable; the main agent persists.
 - References: `references/mcp-tools.md`, `references/codebase-investigation.md`, `references/synapse-policy.md`, `references/context-firewall.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-DeepSeek V4 Pro (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Every claim carries a `path:line` or symbol pointer.
 - Index-derived claims carry freshness evidence, or are labeled reduced-confidence.

package/skills/agents/plan-critic/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: MiniMax M3
+  model_tier: deep
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -81,9 +81,6 @@ Never receives full conversation context.
 - Policy: the main agent owns mode selection, synthesis, plan revision, and the Evidence Gate; this agent owns the critique only.
 - References: `references/agent-orchestration.md`, `references/the-fool/`, `references/verification-ladder.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-MiniMax M3 (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Every challenge ties to a plan section plus a concrete evidence gap or falsifiable check.
 - No challenge rests on missing conversation history that the packet intentionally excluded.

package/skills/agents/planner/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: GLM-5.2
+  model_tier: deep
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -58,9 +58,6 @@ Transform an engineering request into a structured implementation plan.
 - Synapse: none (planning is not a repeated-search task).
 - References: `references/agent-orchestration.md`, `references/subagent-design.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-GLM-5.2 (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Every step in the plan references a concrete file, module, or task.
 - Every risk has a mitigation or accepted-risk note.

package/skills/agents/requirements-analyst/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: DeepSeek V4 Pro
+  model_tier: standard
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -57,9 +57,6 @@ Analyze requirements before implementation to surface ambiguity, gaps, contradic
 - Synapse: none (analysis is not a repeated-search task).
 - References: `references/spec-driven/specify.md`, `references/furps/`.
 
-## Model Hint
-DeepSeek V4 Pro (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Every finding cites a requirement ID or spec section.
 - Every implicit requirement is flagged for user acceptance or recorded as an assumption.

package/skills/agents/reviewer/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: GLM-5.2
+  model_tier: standard
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -59,9 +59,6 @@ Review implementation quality by analyzing the diff and flagging bugs, regressio
 - Synapse: none (review is not a repeated-search task).
 - References: `references/agent-orchestration.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-GLM-5.2 (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Every finding has a `path:line` pointer.
 - Static checks (lint, typecheck) run when available.

package/skills/agents/test-engineer/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: GLM-5.2
+  model_tier: standard
   permission: write
 ---
 
@@ -59,9 +59,6 @@ Generate a testing strategy that covers unit, integration, edge cases, negative
 - Synapse: none (test planning is not a repeated-search task).
 - References: `references/verification-ladder.md`, `references/code-annotation.md`, `references/root-cause-scripts.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-GLM-5.2 (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Every acceptance criterion maps to at least one test case.
 - Edge cases and negative scenarios are enumerated.

package/skills/agents/verification-agent/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ license: MIT
 metadata:
   author: S1LV4, luizgmassa
   version: "1.0.0"
-  model_hint: GLM-5.2
+  model_tier: standard
   permission: read-only
 ---
 
@@ -57,9 +57,6 @@ Centralize Verification Ladder logic and validate that a task's output meets its
 - Synapse: none (verification is not a repeated-search task).
 - References: `references/verification-ladder.md`, `references/evidence-gate.md`.
 
-## Model Hint
-GLM-5.2 (advisory). Fallback to the workflow's configured default model if unavailable.
-
 ## Validation Sensors
 - Every acceptance criterion has a PASS/FAIL verdict with evidence.
 - Skipped checks have a concrete reason.

package/skills/massa-ai/SKILL.md

@@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ current context already contains it.
 | `ticket` | draft and create Jira Epics, issues, and sub-tasks through Atlassian MCP | `workflows/ticket.md` |
 | `commit` | draft or create safe Conventional Commits with Jira branch prefixes and audit report exclusions | `workflows/commit.md` |
 | `the-fool` | direct challenge, red-team, pre-mortem, evidence audit | `workflows/the-fool.md` |
+| `judge-with-debate` | standalone multi-judge debate evaluation of user-supplied artifacts | `workflows/judge-with-debate.md` |
 | `furps-refinement` | FURPS+ refinement of a PRD and/or ADR before implementation, with The Fool pre-validation and DoR coverage | `workflows/refinement/furps-refinement.md` |
 | `general` | coding work with no more specific workflow | `workflows/general.md` |
 

package/skills/massa-ai/references/audit-report-io.md

@@ -29,6 +29,14 @@ audits/mobile-figma/<YYYY-MM-DD mobile-figma-audit.md>
 audits/maestro/<YYYY-MM-DD maestro-audit.md>
 ```
 
+Judge-with-debate evaluation reports use their own family (no `-audit` suffix — recorded
+deviation: these are evaluation-scored reports, not findings-shaped audits):
+
+```text
+audits/judge/<YYYY-MM-DD judge-with-debate judge-N.md>       (N = 1|2|3, one per judge)
+audits/judge/<YYYY-MM-DD judge-with-debate consensus.md>
+```
+
 Use the local current date. Create the required directory when missing. Do not silently overwrite a different run; ask the user or choose a deterministic suffix and state the deviation. Suffix rule: use `-2`, `-3`, etc. for same-day same-target collisions in one session; use `-<HHMMSS>` only when existing files do not reveal a stable sequence.
 
 ## Report Schema v2 Determinism
@@ -398,6 +406,105 @@ Verification Suggestion: <Maestro command, JUnit report check, artifact inspecti
 
 Only executable flow, fixture, setup/teardown, test-data, or directly scoped Maestro CI/report issues become `MST-*` findings. App bugs, product behavior gaps, backend defects, and unclear requirements must route to `debug`, `feature`, or `requirements-audit` instead of `maestro-fix`.
 
+## Judge With Debate Report Contracts
+
+Reports produced by `workflows/judge-with-debate.md`. This family is **evaluation-scored, not
+findings-shaped**: no `Findings` section, no severity/confidence finding IDs, and the
+finding-prefix table does not apply. The path shape deviates from the `<...-audit>` suffix
+convention (`audits/judge/<YYYY-MM-DD judge-with-debate ...>`) — deviation recorded here. No
+downstream fix-workflow consumes these reports today; execution-input selection rules are N/A.
+
+### Per-Judge Report — `audits/judge/<YYYY-MM-DD judge-with-debate judge-N.md>`
+
+Written by judge N at round 0; debate rounds **append** `## Debate Round {R}` sections
+(append-only). Required fields:
+
+```md
+# Judge N Evaluation — <target>
+
+Date: <YYYY-MM-DD>
+Workflow: judge-with-debate
+ProjectId: <projectId>
+WorkflowSessionId: <judge-with-debate-[entity]>
+Target: <evaluated artifact>
+Target Focus: <paths, task description>
+Scope: <artifact paths | diff | prompt-supplied artifact>
+Git Base: <sha/ref or n/a>
+Git Head: <sha/ref, working-tree, or n/a>
+Source Evidence Timestamp: <YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM local time, or unavailable>
+Judge: N (1|2|3)
+Model Requested: <slot pin: deepseek-v4-pro | minimax-m3 | GLM-5.2>
+Model Note: <fallback state or n/a>
+
+## Evaluation Specification
+<meta-judge YAML, embedded verbatim once>
+
+## Criterion Scores
+### <criterion id> — <score>/<scale.max> (weight <w>)
+Evidence: <exact quotes from the artifact>
+Justification: <text>
+
+## Weighted Overall: <score>
+
+## Strengths
+## Weaknesses
+
+## Verification/Test Fidelity Checklist
+| Item | Evidence |
+|---|---|
+| Deterministic sensor | <eval-spec YAML + artifact paths + quoted evidence, or not available with reason> |
+| Result | <pass, fail, not run, or not applicable> |
+| Coverage target | <criterion IDs scored> |
+| Validation assets protected | <none> |
+| Skipped-check reason | <none or allowed skipped-check reason> |
+| Execution handoff | <own file path + consensus file path> |
+
+## Debate Round {R}   (appended per round; absent when consensus at round 0)
+Disagreements (>1.0 gap): <criterion, own score, peer score>
+Defense: <quoted evidence>
+Challenges: <quoted counter-evidence>
+Revision decision: <held | revised old→new + why the evidence was compelling>
+```
+
+### Consensus Report — `audits/judge/<YYYY-MM-DD judge-with-debate consensus.md>`
+
+Written by the orchestrator from judge reply blocks (it never opens judge-N files). Required
+fields: the same freshness header (minus Judge/Model lines) plus:
+
+```md
+Rounds to consensus: <0..3>
+Diversity: <OK | DIVERSITY DEGRADED: <slots and actual models>>
+Local fallbacks: <none | judge-N local, reason>
+
+## Consensus Scores
+| Criterion | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Final (mean) |
+(+ overall row)
+
+## Consensus Strengths
+## Consensus Weaknesses
+(intersection of judge replies)
+
+## Debate Summary
+<initial disagreements and how each resolved, from reply revisions>
+
+## Final Recommendation
+<Pass | Fail | Needs Revision — justification tied to the scores>
+
+## Verification/Test Fidelity Checklist
+| Item | Evidence |
+|---|---|
+| Deterministic sensor | <protocol artifacts on disk (3 judge files) + reply blocks> |
+| Result | <pass | fail> |
+| Coverage target | <spec JD-01..09 behavior executed> |
+| Validation assets protected | <none> |
+| Skipped-check reason | <none or allowed skipped-check reason> |
+| Execution handoff | <all report paths> |
+```
+
+A **no-consensus report** uses the same shape with `Final Recommendation: NO CONSENSUS — human
+review required`, the per-judge table showing unresolved gaps, and the `Debate Summary` naming
+the criteria that never converged. A forced verdict is never emitted.
+
 ## Required Finding Fields
 
 All findings require severity, confidence, location, concrete evidence, impact, smallest fix direction, and verification suggestion. Workflow-specific fields are mandatory: