@bendyline/gilde 0.1.27 → 0.1.29

package/data/craftbook-templates/ab/ab-test-readout/versions/1.0.1/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Decision-ready A/B test readout",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the ab-test-readout craftbook computes the experiment figures CORRECTLY (checked against a harness-owned arithmetic oracle, not prose keyword matching), and whether it applies a decision rule whose guardrail clause overrides a positive, statistically significant primary metric.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `A/B Test Readout Eval` project, read `source/experiment-brief.md` and `data/checkout-test.csv`, then produce two files.\n\n1. `data/stats.json` — the computed figures, using EXACTLY this schema and these units:\n```json\n{\n  \"control\": { \"exposures\": 0, \"conversions\": 0, \"rate\": 0.0, \"refund_requests\": 0, \"refund_rate\": 0.0 },\n  \"variant\":  { \"exposures\": 0, \"conversions\": 0, \"rate\": 0.0, \"refund_requests\": 0, \"refund_rate\": 0.0 },\n  \"absolute_lift_pp\": 0.0,\n  \"relative_lift_pct\": 0.0,\n  \"p_value\": 0.0,\n  \"significant_at_95\": false,\n  \"guardrail_delta_pp\": 0.0,\n  \"guardrail_breached\": false,\n  \"decision\": \"ship\" | \"do_not_ship\" | \"inconclusive\"\n}\n```\n`rate` and `refund_rate` are FRACTIONS (0.12, not 12). `absolute_lift_pp` and `guardrail_delta_pp` are PERCENTAGE POINTS (1.25, not 0.0125). `relative_lift_pct` is a percentage (10.4). Use a two-proportion z-test for `p_value`. Round the two `_pp` fields and `relative_lift_pct` to 2 decimal places and the rate fields to 4, so a computed float does not serialize as 1.2500000000000009.\n\n2. `readout.md` — a decision-ready experiment readout built from those figures and no new numbers. Lead with Ship / Do not ship / Inconclusive, report the conversion lift with confidence/significance language, check the refund-request guardrail, and tie the recommendation to the pre-registered decision rule. Apply the decision rule as written: every clause must hold to ship.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "A/B Test Readout Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for the ab-test-readout craftbook. Experiment brief and aggregate data are seeded in workspace/source and workspace/data.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Compute the experiment figures into data/stats.json under the locked schema, then produce an A/B test readout with hypothesis, primary metric, lift, significance/confidence language, guardrail check, recommendation, and next action. The readout must restate the computed figures, not new ones.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/experiment-brief.md",
+        "content": "# Checkout Trust Badge Experiment\n\nHypothesis: adding the trust badge near the payment button increases checkout conversion.\nPrimary metric: purchase conversions / checkout exposures.\nDecision rule: ship only if conversion lift is positive and statistically persuasive at roughly 95% confidence AND refund-request rate does not regress by more than 0.20 percentage points.\nGuardrail: refund requests / exposures.\nRuntime: 14 full days. Traffic split was 50/50. No peeking; use this as the final readout.\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "data/checkout-test.csv",
+        "content": "variant,exposures,conversions,refund_requests\ncontrol,10000,1200,80\ntrust_badge,10000,1325,103\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Noor",
+      "role": "Data Analyst"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "data/stats.json carries the correct computed figures under the locked schema, and workspace/readout.md restates them with a do-not-ship recommendation that follows the pre-registered decision rule despite a significant positive primary metric.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "data/stats.json",
+        "kind": "json",
+        "minBytes": 120,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "control.rate",
+            "value": 0.12,
+            "label": "control conversion rate is 1200/10000"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "variant.rate",
+            "value": 0.1325,
+            "label": "variant conversion rate is 1325/10000"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "control.refund_rate",
+            "value": 0.008,
+            "label": "control refund rate is 80/10000"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "variant.refund_rate",
+            "value": 0.0103,
+            "label": "variant refund rate is 103/10000"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "absolute_lift_pp",
+            "value": 1.25,
+            "label": "absolute lift is 13.25% - 12.00% = 1.25 percentage points"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "significant_at_95",
+            "value": true,
+            "label": "the two-proportion z-test gives z~2.66, p~0.008 — significant at 95%"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "guardrail_delta_pp",
+            "value": 0.23,
+            "label": "refund rate moved 1.03% - 0.80% = 0.23 percentage points"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "guardrail_breached",
+            "value": true,
+            "label": "0.23pp exceeds the 0.20pp guardrail limit"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsonPathEquals",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "path": "decision",
+            "value": "do_not_ship",
+            "label": "the decision rule requires BOTH a persuasive lift AND no guardrail regression; the guardrail clause fails"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "readout.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 2000,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "readout.md",
+            "pattern": "Hypothesis|Decision rule|Recommendation|Guardrail|Next action",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "readout.md",
+            "pattern": "10,?000|1,?200|1,?325|80|103",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "readout.md",
+            "pattern": "12\\.0?%|13\\.25%|1\\.25|10\\.4",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "readout.md",
+            "pattern": "confidence|significant|p[- ]?value|95%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "readout.md",
+            "pattern": "refund request|guardrail|0\\.23|23 basis|basis points",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "readout.md",
+            "pattern": "do not ship|no-go|hold|do not launch|inconclusive",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "readout.md",
+      "kind": "markdown"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "safety",
+        "description": "Dry-run posture is explicit: no real credentials, clear stop-before-side-effect boundary."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "mapping",
+        "description": "Fake endpoints/commands are mapped completely to the workflow steps."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "signals",
+        "description": "Success, failure, retry, and abort conditions are all defined."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "containment",
+        "description": "The plan cannot accidentally reach a real service from a mock context."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "pre-registered decision rule",
+    "computed lift",
+    "guardrail-aware verdict"
+  ],
+  "extensions": {
+    "legacySimulators": [
+      {
+        "id": "seeded-experiment-aggregate",
+        "kind": "data-source",
+        "status": "implemented",
+        "description": "Local aggregate experiment CSV replacing any live analytics warehouse or experimentation API."
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/ac/accessibility-retrofit/versions/1.0.1/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+{
+  "id": "accessibility-retrofit",
+  "name": "Accessibility Retrofit (WCAG AA)",
+  "description": "Take an existing HTML page and retrofit it to WCAG 2.1 AA — fixing semantic structure, alt text, color contrast, keyboard operability, focus visibility, form labels, ARIA, and landmarks — without changing the visual design. Audits the page against the AA success criteria first to produce a prioritized findings list, then applies the fixes in place. Accessibility work fails when fixes are guessed rather than measured, so the audit phase enumerates the concrete violations and the target criteria before any edit, and the loop runs back to the FIX phase until every finding is resolved.\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. Audit (reviewer) — enumerate concrete WCAG-AA violations to fix → gated on artifact `notes/audit.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Fix (developer) — apply the a11y fixes in place, preserving design → 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": "audit",
+  "triggers": [
+    "accessibility fix",
+    "make it accessible",
+    "wcag compliance",
+    "a11y retrofit",
+    "fix accessibility",
+    "screen reader friendly"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "audit",
+      "name": "Audit",
+      "description": "enumerate concrete WCAG-AA violations to fix",
+      "prompt": "Audit the existing page against WCAG 2.1 AA — do NOT fix yet. (1) Identify the target file and read it. (2) Check the high-yield AA criteria and record each concrete violation: missing/empty alt text on informative images, low text contrast (<4.5:1 normal, <3:1 large — estimate from the hex), missing form <label>s, non-semantic structure (divs where headings/landmarks/lists belong), keyboard traps or non-focusable interactive elements, missing focus indicator, missing lang attribute, missing skip link, improper heading order, and ARIA misuse. (3) For each finding note location, the failing criterion, and the fix. (4) Prioritize (blocker -> minor). (5) Write this as an acceptance-criteria checklist where each item is 'finding X is resolved' so evaluate can verify each. Write the findings + checklist to notes/audit.md and via write_task_note. No edits yet.\n\nThe deliverable `notes/audit.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/audit.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "notes/audit.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "notes/audit.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "audit",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "fix"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "fix",
+      "name": "Fix",
+      "description": "apply the a11y fixes in place, preserving design",
+      "prompt": "Apply the fixes to the page (write the corrected file as index.html) resolving every audited finding WITHOUT changing the visual design. (1) Add meaningful alt text (or alt=\"\" for decorative). (2) Adjust colors only as needed to hit AA contrast, staying on-brand. (3) Add <label>s / aria-label and associate them. (4) Use semantic HTML and landmarks (header/nav/main/footer), correct heading order, and lists. (5) Make all interactive elements keyboard-operable with a visible :focus indicator; add a skip link and the lang attribute; fix any ARIA. Change markup/CSS for semantics and a11y, not the look. On a loop-back, fix only the still-open findings. write_task_note the path and which findings are now resolved.",
+      "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": "fix",
+        "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": "Verify the retrofit against the audit. Open/inspect index.html, tab through with the keyboard, and check contrast. Go through EACH finding in notes/audit.md and write PASS/FAIL with a reason: is every image's alt correct, does text meet AA contrast, is every control labeled and keyboard-operable with a visible focus ring, is the structure semantic with landmarks and correct heading order, is there a lang attribute and skip link, and is the original visual design preserved? Any unresolved finding, or a visual regression, is a FAIL — loop back to fix.\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: \"fix\" })` 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": "fix"
+    },
+    {
+      "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/ac/accessibility-retrofit/versions/1.0.1/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Accessibility Retrofit (WCAG AA) smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Accessibility Retrofit (WCAG AA) 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": "Accessibility Retrofit (WCAG AA) Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for accessibility-retrofit. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/index.html.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Accessibility Retrofit (WCAG AA) 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": "# Accessibility Retrofit (WCAG AA) 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: accessibility-retrofit - Accessibility Retrofit (WCAG AA).\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/ad/ad-variations/versions/1.0.1/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+{
+  "id": "ad-variations",
+  "name": "A/B Ad Copy Variations",
+  "description": "Generate a set of distinct, testable ad-copy variations for one offer across the angles worth A/B testing: it first locks the platform and its constraints (headline/description character limits), the offer, audience, and the distinct messaging angles to test (benefit, pain, social proof, urgency, curiosity), then drafts multiple complete variants per angle so each is a genuine test of a hypothesis rather than a trivial reword. Covers ad copy, A/B testing, Google/Facebook/LinkedIn ads, PPC copy, ad variations, and marketing experiments. Locking the angles and limits before writing is the point: a small model that commits to distinct hypotheses produces variants that actually test something, not ten near-duplicates that teach the advertiser nothing.\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. Ad brief (planner) — lock platform limits, offer, audience, and test angles → gated on artifact `notes/brief.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Draft the variations (copywriter) — write distinct, limit-respecting variants per angle → gated on `ad-variations.json` (json)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "brief",
+  "triggers": [
+    "write ad copy",
+    "ab test ad variations",
+    "facebook ad copy",
+    "google ads copy",
+    "ad variations"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "brief",
+      "name": "Ad brief",
+      "description": "lock platform limits, offer, audience, and test angles",
+      "prompt": "1) Pick the platform and its hard limits (e.g. Google RSA headlines <=30 chars and descriptions <=90 chars; Meta primary text, headline, description fields). 2) State the offer and the single primary audience. 3) Define the distinct ANGLES to test as named hypotheses (e.g. benefit-led, pain/problem-led, social-proof, urgency/scarcity, curiosity) — each a different reason the user clicks. 4) Decide how many variants per angle (e.g. 2) and the required fields per ad. 5) Note the CTA options. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist (e.g. 'every variant respects the platform char limits'; 'each angle is genuinely distinct, not a reword'; 'N variants per angle delivered'; 'every field populated'; 'one offer, consistent across variants'; 'CTA present'). Use write_task_note for the brief + angle list + checklist, and write the same to the produces path. No ad copy yet.\n\nThe deliverable `notes/brief.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/brief.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "notes/brief.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "notes/brief.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "brief",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "draft"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "draft",
+      "name": "Draft the variations",
+      "description": "write distinct, limit-respecting variants per angle",
+      "prompt": "Write the ad variations per the brief. 1) For each named angle, write the specified number of complete variants, each filling every required platform field (e.g. headline, description, primary text, CTA). 2) Make each angle genuinely distinct — a curiosity ad and a social-proof ad should read differently, not swap a synonym. 3) Strictly respect every character limit; count characters and stay under. 4) Keep the offer identical across all variants (only the angle/message changes). 5) Use punchy, concrete, scannable copy. 6) Output a single valid JSON array of objects: {\"angle\", \"variant\", \"headline\", \"description\", \"primaryText\" (if applicable), \"cta\", \"charCounts\"}. Save to the produces path and note total variant count.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "ad-variations.json",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "json-valid"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "bytes": 2
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkJsonValid",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "ad-variations.json"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "draft",
+        "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": "Parse ad-variations.json (must be valid JSON) and grade against the checklist. Check EACH criterion and write PASS/FAIL: (a) every field of every variant respects the platform's character limits (verify charCounts against the limits); (b) each angle is genuinely distinct from the others, not a reword; (c) the specified number of variants per angle is present; (d) every required field is populated; (e) the offer is consistent across all variants; (f) each has a CTA. A set of near-duplicate variants or any that exceeds a limit FAILS — loop back to draft and name the offenders.\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: \"draft\" })` 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": "ad-variations.json"
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "draft"
+    },
+    {
+      "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/ad/ad-variations/versions/1.0.1/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Distinct ad-copy variations",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the ad-variations craftbook locks platform limits and produces genuinely distinct, complete ad variants instead of near-duplicate copy.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Ad Variations Eval` project, write `ad-variations.json` for a Google search ad test for Harbor & Finch, a home-office accessories shop launching an ergonomic desk-lamp bundle. Use Google RSA-style limits: headlines <=30 characters and descriptions <=90 characters. Produce exactly 2 variants each for benefit-led, pain/problem-led, and social-proof angles. Include charCounts for every headline and description, and make each angle visibly distinct.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Ad Variations Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for ad-variations. The only deliverable is workspace/ad-variations.json.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Produce distinct, limit-aware ad variants for three named angles with complete fields and charCounts.",
+    "files": [],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Janne",
+      "role": "Copywriter"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "ad-variations.json is valid JSON with named angles, complete ad fields, and character counts.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "ad-variations.json",
+        "kind": "json",
+        "minBytes": 800,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "sniff": "json-valid"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "pattern": "benefit-led|benefit",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "pattern": "pain|problem",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "pattern": "social-proof|social proof",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "pattern": "headline",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "pattern": "description",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "pattern": "char(acter)?[_ ]?counts?",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "ad-variations.json",
+            "pattern": "Harbor|Finch|desk-lamp|ergonomic",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "ad-variations.json",
+      "kind": "json"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "grounding",
+        "description": "Seeded facts appear faithfully and the source is cited."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "structure",
+        "description": "Sections progress logically for the artifact class."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "completeness",
+        "description": "Required elements (risks, next actions, scope) are all present."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "tone",
+        "description": "The register fits the audience and artifact class."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "angle distinctness",
+    "platform limits",
+    "structured JSON"
+  ]
+}