@bendyline/gilde 0.1.26 → 0.1.28

package/data/craftbook-templates/eb/ebook-compile/versions/1.0.1/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+  "id": "ebook-compile",
+  "name": "Ebook Compile",
+  "description": "Compile a collection of notes, articles, or chapter drafts into a coherent, readable ebook — with a title page, table of contents, consistently formatted chapters, and front/back matter — output as a single navigable HTML book. Outlines the chapter structure and through-line FIRST (so disparate notes become a real book, not a pile), writes/edits each chapter to a consistent voice and adds connective tissue, then builds the compiled HTML with a linked TOC and chapter navigation. Use for turning a blog backlog, course notes, or drafts into a downloadable ebook.\n\nA gallery craftbook generated from an archetype spec. It runs\n`phase → (per-phase gate) → … → evaluate → (loop) → finish`. Each build\nphase that produces a checkable artifact is followed by a **runtime\ngate-checkpoint** — the runtime verifies the artifact and routes with no\nmodel turn, looping back to redo the phase on a miss. The final `evaluate`\nstep holds a static deliverable gate plus a reviewer QA pass. What it adds\nover the generic `build-loop`: a specialist role per phase, a\ndomain-correct ordering, and a concrete per-phase quality bar.\n\nDeliverables marked \"artifact\" land in the project's artifacts drawer (`write_artifact` / `read_artifact`), not the shipped workspace — review output is not product source.\n\nPhases:\n\n1. Outline the book (planner) — chapter order, through-line, and front/back matter → gated on artifact `notes/outline.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Write and edit chapters (copywriter) — edit each chapter to one voice + add connective transitions → gated on artifact `notes/write.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Build the ebook (developer) — compile index.html: title page, linked TOC, chapter nav → gated on `index.html` (html-page)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "outline",
+  "triggers": [
+    "compile an ebook",
+    "make an ebook",
+    "turn my notes into a book",
+    "ebook from articles",
+    "build a book",
+    "create an ebook"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "outline",
+      "name": "Outline the book",
+      "description": "chapter order, through-line, and front/back matter",
+      "prompt": "Turn the raw material into a book structure. Step 1: survey the source notes/articles and identify the central through-line or argument that will make them cohere. Step 2: group and order the material into chapters/parts that build logically; cut or merge redundant pieces. Step 3: plan the front matter (title page, optional preface/intro, table of contents) and back matter (conclusion, about, resources). Step 4: for each chapter note its title, the source pieces it draws from, and the transition that links it to the next. Step 5: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('has a title page + linked table of contents', 'chapters are ordered to a clear through-line', 'each chapter opens and closes cleanly with transitions', 'consistent heading levels throughout', 'front and back matter present'). Write the chapter map + checklist via write_task_note AND to notes/outline.md. No chapter prose or HTML yet.\n\nThe deliverable `notes/outline.md` lands in the project's artifacts drawer — write it with `write_artifact` and read it back with `read_artifact`; the shipped workspace stays untouched.",
+      "suggestedRole": "planner",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "notes/outline.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "notes/outline.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "notes/outline.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "outline",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write and edit chapters",
+      "description": "edit each chapter to one voice + add connective transitions",
+      "prompt": "Write/edit the chapters so the book reads as one work. Step 1: for each chapter in order, shape the source material into clean prose with a consistent voice, tense, and terminology (disparate notes often clash — unify them). Step 2: give each chapter a clear opening that orients the reader and a close that lands the point and transitions to the next chapter. Step 3: write the preface/intro that sets up the through-line and the conclusion that ties it together. Step 4: standardize formatting decisions — heading levels, how lists/quotes/code appear — so they are uniform across chapters. Step 5: keep the reader's journey in mind: no chapter should feel like an orphaned blog post. Write the per-chapter edited text + front/back matter via write_task_note AND to notes/write.md.\n\nThe deliverable `notes/write.md` lands in the project's artifacts drawer — write it with `write_artifact` and read it back with `read_artifact`; the shipped workspace stays untouched.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "notes/write.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "notes/write.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "notes/write.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "write",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "build"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "build",
+      "name": "Build the ebook",
+      "description": "compile index.html: title page, linked TOC, chapter nav",
+      "prompt": "Compile the book as a single self-contained index.html (inline CSS, no external assets). Step 1: build a title page (title, subtitle, author) as the opening screen. Step 2: build a Table of Contents with in-page anchor links to every chapter. Step 3: render each chapter in order with a stable id, consistent heading hierarchy, comfortable reading width and line-height, and the unified formatting from the edit phase. Step 4: add chapter navigation — previous/next links and a back-to-TOC link at each chapter boundary — and use page-break-before per chapter so it also prints/exports as a clean book. Step 5: include the front matter (preface) and back matter (conclusion, about/resources). Drop in the edited prose verbatim; do not re-edit the voice here. On a loop-back, fix ONLY the named gaps. Write the path + chapter count via write_task_note.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "index.html",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "html-complete"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "bytes": 800
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "htmlLint",
+            "file": "index.html"
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkHtmlComplete",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "index.html"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "build",
+        "maxAttempts": 4
+      },
+      "next": "evaluate"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Evaluate",
+      "description": "Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.",
+      "prompt": "QA the ebook against the locked criteria. Step 1: open/render index.html and click through the TOC links and chapter navigation. Step 2: check EACH acceptance criterion: title page present, a linked table of contents whose links all resolve to the right chapters, chapters ordered to the through-line, each chapter opens/closes with transitions, heading levels and formatting are consistent across chapters, and front + back matter are present. Step 3: read two non-adjacent chapters and confirm the voice is unified (not obviously stitched from clashing sources). Step 4: confirm chapter page-breaks work for print/export. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion with the offending chapter on any FAIL.\n\nThen route — this is the whole point of the loop:\n\n- **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"finish\" })`.\n- **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"build\" })` to loop back. The builder fixes exactly those gaps.\n\nNever route to `finish` while any criterion is unmet. The build phase's completion gate already blocked a grossly-incomplete deliverable; your job is the judgment an automated check cannot make (does it actually work, read well, look right). After ~3 unproductive loops, stop and report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS so the user can step in.",
+      "suggestedRole": "reviewer",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "index.html"
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "build"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "finish",
+      "name": "Finish",
+      "description": "All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE.",
+      "prompt": "Every acceptance criterion passed. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes via `write_task_note`: what was built, the deliverable path(s), and a one-line confirmation that each criterion is met. Then report DONE.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "terminal": true
+    }
+  ],
+  "version": "1.0.1",
+  "releasedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00Z"
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/eb/ebook-compile/versions/1.0.1/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Ebook Compile smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Ebook Compile craftbook using the html-page generic harness.",
+  "tags": [
+    "html-page"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "Can you biuld us a little page for this? The content notes are in source/page-content.md. Save it as index.html — one file, nothing fancy needed on our end.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Ebook Compile Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for ebook-compile. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/index.html.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Ebook Compile craftbook/template, read the seeded local fixtures, and write index.html without network calls, real credentials, or live services.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/brief.md",
+        "content": "# Ebook Compile Eval Brief\n\nClient: Boreal Desk, a home-office accessories company.\nAudience: operations leads who need an artifact they can use this week.\n\nFixed source facts for grounding:\n- The returns desk pilot covered 18 SKUs.\n- Median first response improved from 18 hours to 6 hours.\n- Preventable refund leakage fell from 14.2% to 8.9%.\n- The top unresolved complaint is status silence after photo submission.\n- Required next actions are automated status emails, barcode-exception training, and a weekly Finance exception export.\n\nUse these facts when the task asks for prose, analysis, copy, UI content, or test data. Do not use live web services, real credentials, or current outside data.\n\nCraftbook under test: ebook-compile - Ebook Compile.\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/page-content.md",
+        "content": "# Boreal Desk Support Board\n\nBuild content around a support operations board. Required labels: Open issues, Status silence, Response time, Refund leakage, Next action. Required metric text: 18 hours to 6 hours and 14.2% to 8.9%.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Jules",
+      "role": "Developer"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "index.html is a source-grounded self-contained HTML page/tool.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "index.html",
+        "kind": "html-page",
+        "minBytes": 3000,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "cssMinBytes",
+            "bytes": 650,
+            "file": "index.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsParses",
+            "file": "index.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "Boreal|Support Board|returns",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "18\\s*hours|6\\s*hours|14\\.2%|8\\.9%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "button|input|filter|tab|card|section|nav",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "index.html",
+      "kind": "html"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "structure",
+        "description": "Layout and hierarchy fit the content; sections are scannable and coherent."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "grounding",
+        "description": "Seeded source content is used faithfully — no invented facts or dropped requirements."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "interactivity",
+        "description": "Controls and states the page claims to offer actually work."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "polish",
+        "description": "Styling is intentional and responsive rather than unstyled or broken."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "self-contained UI",
+    "source grounding",
+    "responsive structure"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/ed/edit-notes/versions/1.0.1/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+{
+  "id": "edit-notes",
+  "name": "Edit Notes Pass",
+  "description": "Review the footage like an editor: timestamped notes on pacing and cuts read against the transcript and the media index, then a machine-readable cut list the assembly step can execute — opinion upstream, precision downstream. Locks the review criteria FIRST (every keep or cut carries a timecode and a reason, b-roll gaps get named), then writes the edit notes, then distills them into the cut list — so the creative call and the executable record never drift apart. Use for edit passes, footage reviews, 'what should we cut', cutlist prep, and tightening a video that drags.\n\nA gallery craftbook generated from an archetype spec. It runs\n`phase → (per-phase gate) → … → evaluate → (loop) → finish`. Each build\nphase that produces a checkable artifact is followed by a **runtime\ngate-checkpoint** — the runtime verifies the artifact and routes with no\nmodel turn, looping back to redo the phase on a miss. The final `evaluate`\nstep holds a static deliverable gate plus a reviewer QA pass. What it adds\nover the generic `build-loop`: a specialist role per phase, a\ndomain-correct ordering, and a concrete per-phase quality bar.\n\nDeliverables marked \"artifact\" land in the project's artifacts drawer (`write_artifact` / `read_artifact`), not the shipped workspace — review output is not product source.\n\nPhases:\n\n1. Scope the review (regisseur) — footage inventory, transcript read, review criteria locked → gated on artifact `notes/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Write the edit notes (reviewer) — timestamped pacing and cut notes, clip by clip → gated on artifact `notes/edit-notes.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Build the cut list (developer) — the machine-readable record of every edit decision → gated on `cutlist.json` (json)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "edit pass",
+    "review the footage",
+    "make a cutlist",
+    "what should we cut",
+    "tighten the video"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the review",
+      "description": "footage inventory, transcript read, review criteria locked",
+      "prompt": "Define the edit pass before forming a single opinion. Step 1: read media/index.json from the workspace — every clip with its id and duration — and read the transcript under transcripts/ plus the storyboard or brief if one exists, so you know what the piece is trying to be. Step 2: lock the review criteria — every keep-or-cut call carries a timecode and a stated reason, pacing judgments name the specific stretch that drags or rushes, b-roll gaps are named where the footage cannot carry the point, and no note references footage that is not in the index. Step 3: define what the cut list must record for each decision — which clip, the in and out points, the action (keep, cut, trim, reorder), and a short note tying it back to the edit notes. Step 4: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('every note carries a timecode', 'every cut decision has a reason', 'every cut-list row points at a real clip', 'in and out points sit inside that clip's duration', 'the draggy stretches are addressed, not just observed'). Call write_task_note with the clip count + criteria + checklist and write notes/scope.md. No reviewing yet.\n\nThe deliverable `notes/scope.md` lands in the project's artifacts drawer — write it with `write_artifact` and read it back with `read_artifact`; the shipped workspace stays untouched.",
+      "suggestedRole": "regisseur",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "notes/scope.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "notes/scope.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "notes/scope.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "scope",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "review"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "review",
+      "name": "Write the edit notes",
+      "description": "timestamped pacing and cut notes, clip by clip",
+      "prompt": "Review the footage against the locked criteria. Step 1: walk the transcript and the media index clip by clip, in story order, and write timestamped notes — what works, what drags, where the energy dips, where a cut or trim would help. Every observation carries a timecode in mm:ss form and names its clip. Step 2: for each stretch that drags, say exactly what to do about it — trim from where to where, cut entirely, or reorder — and why the piece is better for it. Step 3: name the b-roll gaps: the moments where the words need cover the footage does not have, so the owner can plan pickups. Step 4: keep opinions honest and concrete — 'the intro runs long' is a note, 'trim 0:12-0:38, the point lands at 0:39' is an edit. Write the notes to notes/edit-notes.md and call write_task_note with the count of cut decisions and the biggest pacing problem found.\n\nThe deliverable `notes/edit-notes.md` lands in the project's artifacts drawer — write it with `write_artifact` and read it back with `read_artifact`; the shipped workspace stays untouched.",
+      "suggestedRole": "reviewer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+            "pattern": "\\d{1,2}:\\d{2}",
+            "label": "the edit notes carry mm:ss timecodes",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "review",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "cutlist"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cutlist",
+      "name": "Build the cut list",
+      "description": "the machine-readable record of every edit decision",
+      "prompt": "Distill the edit notes into the cut list the assembly step can execute. Step 1: for every decision in notes/edit-notes.md, write one record to cutlist.json as a JSON array — each record with the clip id exactly as it appears in media/index.json, the in and out points, the action (keep, cut, trim, or reorder), and a short note carrying the reason over from the edit notes. Step 2: verify precision as you go — every clip id must exist in the media index, and every in and out point must sit within that clip's duration; a cut list that references invented footage or impossible timecodes is worse than no cut list. Step 3: order the records in final-piece order so the assembly reads top to bottom. Step 4: re-read the result once as JSON — valid, complete, no decision from the notes left behind. Call write_task_note with the record count and the total runtime the kept material adds up to.\n\nBefore working, open the artifact input `notes/edit-notes.md` with `read_artifact`; do not look for it in the workspace.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        }
+      ],
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "cutlist.json",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "json-valid"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "cutlist.json",
+            "bytes": 2
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "recordSchema",
+            "file": "cutlist.json",
+            "fields": [
+              {
+                "name": "clip",
+                "type": "nonempty"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "in"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "out"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "action",
+                "type": "nonempty"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "note",
+                "required": false
+              }
+            ],
+            "minRows": 3
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkJsonValid",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "cutlist.json"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "cutlist",
+        "maxAttempts": 4
+      },
+      "next": "evaluate"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Evaluate",
+      "description": "Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.",
+      "prompt": "Open cutlist.json, notes/edit-notes.md, and media/index.json and verify every criterion from notes/scope.md: every cut-list record names a clip id that exists in the media index, every in and out point sits inside that clip's duration, every record's action traces back to a timestamped note with a reason, the notes address the pacing problems rather than just observing them, and the b-roll gaps are named. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion; on any failure, name the offending record or note and loop back to cutlist.\n\nThen route — this is the whole point of the loop:\n\n- **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"finish\" })`.\n- **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"cutlist\" })` to loop back. The builder fixes exactly those gaps.\n\nNever route to `finish` while any criterion is unmet. The build phase's completion gate already blocked a grossly-incomplete deliverable; your job is the judgment an automated check cannot make (does it actually work, read well, look right). After ~3 unproductive loops, stop and report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS so the user can step in.",
+      "suggestedRole": "reviewer",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "cutlist.json"
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "cutlist"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "finish",
+      "name": "Finish",
+      "description": "All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE.",
+      "prompt": "Every acceptance criterion passed. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes via `write_task_note`: what was built, the deliverable path(s), and a one-line confirmation that each criterion is met. Then report DONE.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "terminal": true
+    }
+  ],
+  "version": "1.0.1",
+  "releasedAt": "2026-08-14T00:00:00Z"
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/ed/edit-notes/versions/1.0.1/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Edit Notes Pass smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Task-specific eval for the Edit Notes Pass craftbook: five indexed clips and a raw transcript with a draggy middle (an interview tangent and a repeated demo step) become timestamped edit notes and a machine-readable cutlist that references only real footage within real durations.",
+  "tags": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "footage for the workshop video is indexed and the trancript is in — can you do an edit pass and give me a cutlist? somethings draggy in the middle",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Video Workshop — Edit Notes Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for edit-notes. The clip index is media/index.json (five clips with durations in seconds), the raw transcript is transcripts/raw.txt (per-clip mm:ss timecodes), and the storyboard is storyboard.md. The edit notes go to notes/edit-notes.md and the cut list to cutlist.json.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Edit Notes Pass craftbook/template, review the seeded transcript against the media index, and produce timestamped edit notes plus cutlist.json. Every cut decision carries a timecode and a reason; no invented footage. No live services or real media tools — this is the review-and-cutlist half.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "media/index.json",
+        "content": "[\n  {\n    \"id\": \"c01-intro\",\n    \"file\": \"media/c01-intro.mp4\",\n    \"durationSeconds\": 48\n  },\n  {\n    \"id\": \"c02-interview\",\n    \"file\": \"media/c02-interview.mp4\",\n    \"durationSeconds\": 184\n  },\n  {\n    \"id\": \"c03-broll-shop\",\n    \"file\": \"media/c03-broll-shop.mp4\",\n    \"durationSeconds\": 62\n  },\n  {\n    \"id\": \"c04-demo\",\n    \"file\": \"media/c04-demo.mp4\",\n    \"durationSeconds\": 141\n  },\n  {\n    \"id\": \"c05-outro\",\n    \"file\": \"media/c05-outro.mp4\",\n    \"durationSeconds\": 39\n  }\n]\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "transcripts/raw.txt",
+        "content": "Workshop video - raw transcript (rough auto pass, per-clip timecodes)\n\n[c01-intro]\n0:00 Welcome back to the workshop. Today we are building the dovetail jig I promised.\n0:19 Quick look at the finished jig so you know where we are headed.\n0:41 (dead air while the camera gets adjusted)\n\n[c02-interview]\n0:00 So the first thing people get wrong with dovetails is the layout, every time.\n0:35 The story of my first jig - it was awful, but it cut straight, and that is the point.\n1:20 ...and that reminds me of the time at the timber yard, there was this dog that guarded the offcuts bin... (long tangent, drifts well away from the jig)\n2:40 Anyway, back to the jig. The key measurement is the pin width at the baseline.\n2:58 If your pins are proud by even a millimeter, the joint telegraphs it.\n\n[c03-broll-shop]\n(no speech - bench shots, clamps closing, shavings falling, glue-up)\n\n[c04-demo]\n0:00 Set the fence to twelve degrees and lock it before anything else.\n0:48 Now we cut the tails first. Watch the offcut side, not the blade.\n1:22 Let me do that cut again from the other angle... (repeats the same step, adds nothing new)\n1:50 (silent repositioning)\n2:21 And the fit test - listen for that squeak. That squeak is the whole video.\n\n[c05-outro]\n0:00 If you build one, send me a photo. I read everything.\n0:24 Next week: the box joint jig, which is somehow more controversial.\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "storyboard.md",
+        "content": "# Workshop video - storyboard\n\nShape: cold open on the finished jig, intro, expert interview for the why,\nshop b-roll to breathe, the demo as the spine, outro with the ask.\nTarget: a tight six minutes. The interview and demo are allowed to flex,\nbut nothing stays in that does not earn its seconds.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Teun",
+      "role": "Editor"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "cutlist.json is a machine-readable record of real edit decisions: every row names a clip from media/index.json with in/out points and an action, the notes carry mm:ss timecodes and address the draggy middle, and the b-roll picture is considered.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "cutlist.json",
+        "kind": "json",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "recordSchema",
+            "file": "cutlist.json",
+            "fields": [
+              {
+                "name": "clip",
+                "type": "nonempty"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "in"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "out"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "action",
+                "type": "nonempty"
+              },
+              {
+                "name": "note",
+                "required": false
+              }
+            ],
+            "minRows": 3
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "valuesSubsetOf",
+            "file": "cutlist.json",
+            "sourceFiles": [
+              "media/index.json"
+            ],
+            "pattern": "\"clip\"\\s*:\\s*\"([^\"]+)\"",
+            "label": "every cutlist row references a clip that exists in the media index"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-notes",
+        "minBytes": 400,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+            "pattern": "\\d{1,2}:\\d{2}",
+            "label": "the edit notes carry mm:ss timecodes"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+            "pattern": "tangent|timber|drags|drift",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "the interview tangent in the middle is called out"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "notes/edit-notes.md",
+            "pattern": "repeat|again|redundant|duplicate",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "the repeated demo step is called out"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "checks": [
+      {
+        "kind": "judge",
+        "file": "cutlist.json",
+        "rubric": "Every in/out point in the cutlist sits within the referenced clip's duration from media/index.json, and the rows that trim or cut the middle correspond to the transcript's tangent (c02-interview around 1:20-2:40) and repeated demo step (c04-demo around 1:22-1:50) rather than arbitrary stretches.",
+        "sourceFiles": [
+          "media/index.json",
+          "transcripts/raw.txt"
+        ],
+        "label": "timecode precision and grounded cuts"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "cutlist.json",
+      "kind": "json"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "editorial-judgment",
+        "description": "Cuts and keeps serve the piece; the draggy middle is actually fixed, not just observed."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "timecode-precision",
+        "description": "In/out points are concrete, inside clip durations, and consistent between notes and cutlist."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "pacing-analysis",
+        "description": "The notes explain where energy dips and why, clip by clip."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "actionability",
+        "description": "An assembly step could execute the cutlist top to bottom without asking questions."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "grounded cut decisions",
+    "timecode precision",
+    "no invented footage"
+  ]
+}