write-judge-prompt

---
name: write-judge-prompt
description: >
license: MIT
---

# Write LLM-as-Judge Prompt

Design a binary Pass/Fail LLM-as-Judge evaluator for one specific failure mode. Each judge checks exactly one thing.

## Prerequisites

- Error analysis is complete. The failure mode is identified.
- You have human-labeled traces for this failure mode (at least 20 Pass and 20 Fail examples).
- A code-based evaluator cannot check this failure mode. Exhaust code-based options before reaching for a judge — many failure modes that seem subjective reduce to keyword checks, regex, or API calls when you understand the domain. Example: detecting whether an AI interviewing coach suggests "general" questions (asking about typical behavior instead of a specific past event) seems to require semantic understanding, but in practice a keyword check for words like "usually," "typical," and "normally" could work quite well.

## The Four Components

Every judge prompt requires exactly four components:

### 1. Task and Evaluation Criterion

State what the judge evaluates. One failure mode per judge.

```
You are an evaluator assessing whether a real estate assistant's email
uses the appropriate tone for the client's persona.
```

Not: "Evaluate whether the email is good" or "Rate the email quality from 1-5."

### 2. Pass/Fail Definitions

Outcomes are strictly binary: Pass or Fail. No Likert scales, no letter grades, no partial credit. Define exactly what constitutes Pass and Fail. These definitions come from your error analysis failure mode descriptions.

```
## Definitions

PASS: The email matches the expected communication style for the client persona:
- Luxury Buyers: formal language, emphasis on exclusive features, premium
  market positioning, no casual slang
- First-Time Homebuyers: warm and encouraging tone, educational explanations,
  avoids jargon, patient and supportive
- Investors: data-driven language, ROI-focused, market analytics, concise
  and professional

FAIL: The email uses a tone mismatched to the client persona. Examples:
- Using casual slang ("hey, check out this pad!") for a luxury buyer
- Using heavy financial jargon for a first-time homebuyer
- Using overly emotional language for an investor
```

### 3. Few-Shot Examples

Include labeled Pass and Fail examples from your human-labeled data.

```
## Examples

### Example 1: PASS
Client Persona: Luxury Buyer
Email: "Dear Mr. Harrington, I am pleased to present an exclusive listing
at 1200 Pacific Heights Drive. This distinguished property features..."
Critique: The email opens with a formal salutation and uses language
consistent with luxury positioning — "exclusive listing," "distinguished
property." No casual slang or informal phrasing. The tone matches the
luxury buyer persona throughout.
Result: Pass

### Example 2: FAIL
Client Persona: Luxury Buyer
Email: "Hey! Just found this awesome place you might like. It's got a
pool and stuff, super cool neighborhood..."
Critique: The greeting "Hey!" is informal. Phrases like "awesome place,"
"got a pool and stuff," and "super cool" are casual slang inappropriate
for a luxury buyer. The email reads like a text message, not a
professional communication for a high-end client.
Result: Fail

### Example 3: PASS (borderline)
Client Persona: First-Time Homebuyer
Email: "Hi Sarah, I found a property that might be a great fit for your
first home. The neighborhood has good schools nearby, and the monthly
payment would be similar to what you're currently paying in rent..."
Critique: The greeting is warm but not overly casual. The email explains
the property in relatable terms — comparing mortgage to rent, mentioning
schools — which is educational without being condescending. It avoids
jargon like "amortization" or "LTV ratio." While not deeply technical,
this matches the supportive tone expected for a first-time buyer.
Result: Pass
```

**Rules for selecting examples:**
- Include at least one clear Pass, one clear Fail, and one borderline case. Borderline examples are the most valuable — they teach nuance.
- Draw examples from the training split (10-20% of labeled data set aside for this purpose).
- Any example used in the judge prompt must be excluded from dev and test sets. Using dev/test examples is data leakage.
- 2-4 examples is typical. Performance plateaus after 4-8.

### 4. Structured Output Format

Enforce structured output using your LLM provider's schema enforcement (e.g., `response_format` in OpenAI, tool definitions in Anthropic) or a library like Instructor or Outlines. If the provider doesn't support schema enforcement, specify the JSON schema in the prompt.

The output must include a critique before the verdict. Placing the critique first forces the judge to articulate its assessment before committing to a decision.

```json
{
  "critique": "string — detailed assessment of the output against the criterion",
  "result": "Pass or Fail"
}
```

Critiques must be detailed, not terse. A good critique explains what specifically was correct or incorrect and references concrete evidence from the output. The critiques in your few-shot examples set the bar for the level of detail the judge will produce.

## Choosing What to Pass to the Judge

Feed only what the judge needs for an accurate decision:

| Failure Mode | What the Judge Needs |
|-------------|---------------------|
| Tone mismatch | Client persona + generated email |
| Answer faithfulness | Retrieved context + generated answer |
| SQL correctness | User query + generated SQL + schema |
| Instruction following | System prompt rules + generated response |
| Tool call justification | Conversation history + tool call + tool result |

For long documents, feed only the relevant snippet, not the entire document.

## Model Selection

Start with the most capable model available. The same model used for the main task works as judge (the judge performs a different, narrower task). Optimize for cost later once alignment is confirmed.

## Anti-Patterns

- **Vague criteria like "is this helpful?"** Target a specific, observable failure mode from error analysis.
- **Holistic judge for the entire trace.** A single judge covering multiple dimensions produces unactionable verdicts.
- **No few-shot examples.** Without examples, the model won't know what counts as a failure in your application.
- **Dev/test examples used as few-shot.** This is data leakage. Use only the training split.
- **Likert scales (1-5, letter grades, etc.).** Binary pass/fail only. Likert scales produce scores that sound precise but can't be calibrated: annotators disagree on the difference between a 3 and a 4, and the judge inherits that noise. Binary forces you to define a clear decision boundary upfront, which makes inter-annotator agreement measurable and the judge's errors actionable. If you need to capture severity, use multiple binary judges (e.g., "factually wrong" and "dangerously wrong") rather than one ordinal scale.
- **Skipping validation.** Measure alignment with human labels using validate-evaluator before trusting the judge.
- **Judges for specification failures without fixing the prompt first.** If the prompt never asked for the behavior, add the instruction before building an evaluator. For critical requirements, a judge can still serve as a regression guard.