Skill

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.

Install

npx claudepluginhub dheerg/swarms --plugin swarm

Tool Access

This skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.

Preview

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

SKILL.md

Similar Skills

cache-components

Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.

cache-components

139.2k

mcp-builder

9 files

Guides building MCP servers enabling LLMs to interact with external services via tools. Covers best practices, TypeScript/Node (MCP SDK), Python (FastMCP).

anthropics-skills-13

124.2k

canvas-design

20 files

Generates original PNG/PDF visual art via design philosophy manifestos for posters, graphics, and static designs on user request.

anthropics-skills-13

124.2k

Stats

Stars6

Forks0

Last CommitApr 17, 2026

Actions

View Source View Plugin View on GitHub View README

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