@bendyline/gilde 0.1.37 → 0.1.39

package/data/craftbook-templates/a1/a11y-audit/versions/1.1.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+{
+  "id": "a11y-audit",
+  "name": "Accessibility Audit",
+  "description": "Audit a web page or UI for accessibility against WCAG 2.1 AA and produce a prioritized remediation report. First scopes the components and flows in play and locks a WCAG checklist (semantic structure, keyboard operability, focus management, color contrast, alt text, form labels, ARIA correctness, motion/reflow), then audits each criterion by inspecting the markup, simulating keyboard and screen-reader use, and measuring contrast, then writes a findings report citing the failing WCAG success criterion, the affected element, and the fix. Use this for an accessibility audit, a11y review, WCAG compliance check, screen-reader or keyboard-navigation testing, or making a page accessible — it ties each defect to a numbered WCAG criterion with a concrete code remedy rather than vague 'improve accessibility' notes.\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 audit (reviewer) — enumerate components + lock a WCAG AA checklist → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Audit each criterion (reviewer) — inspect markup, keyboard, contrast, ARIA per SC → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/audit.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Write the a11y report (reviewer) — findings keyed to WCAG SCs with fixes → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md` (markdown-report)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "accessibility audit",
+    "a11y review",
+    "check WCAG compliance",
+    "is this accessible",
+    "screen reader test",
+    "keyboard navigation audit"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the audit",
+      "description": "enumerate components + lock a WCAG AA checklist",
+      "prompt": "Step 1: Identify the page/components and the user flows to audit (navigation, forms, modals, interactive widgets, media). Step 2: Build a WCAG 2.1 AA acceptance-criteria checklist covering: semantic landmarks and heading order (1.3.1), keyboard operability of all controls with no traps (2.1.1/2.1.2), visible focus indicators and logical focus order (2.4.7/2.4.3), text contrast ≥ 4.5:1 and UI/large text ≥ 3:1 (1.4.3/1.4.11), text alternatives for images/icons (1.1.1), programmatic labels for every form field (1.3.1/4.1.2), correct and minimal ARIA (4.1.2), name/role/value for custom widgets, reflow at 320px and 200% zoom (1.4.10/1.4.4), and no information conveyed by color alone (1.4.1). Step 3: For each item, state the pass condition for THIS UI. Step 4: Note the tools/method you will use (DOM inspection, keyboard walk, contrast math, axe if available). Write the component list + WCAG checklist (each item tagged with its SC number) to `write_task_note` AND `{{workPath}}/scope.md`. No findings yet.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/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": "reviewer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/scope.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/scope.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/scope.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "scope",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "audit"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "audit",
+      "name": "Audit each criterion",
+      "description": "inspect markup, keyboard, contrast, ARIA per SC",
+      "prompt": "Step 1: Open/inspect the UI (use the browser or a11y tooling if available; otherwise read the HTML/CSS/JS and reason about the rendered semantics). Step 2: For EACH checklist criterion, perform the actual check: tab through the page recording focus order and any unreachable/trapped controls; verify each interactive element has an accessible name and correct role; compute contrast ratios for text and UI on their real backgrounds; confirm every image/icon has appropriate alt or is correctly hidden; confirm every input has a programmatic label; validate ARIA usage against the spec (no redundant/invalid roles). Step 3: For each violation capture: the WCAG SC number and level, the selector/element, what is wrong, the user impact (who is blocked and how), severity, and the concrete code fix. Step 4: Record the criteria that PASS so the report shows full coverage. Good looks like: 'SC 1.4.3 FAIL — .btn-primary text #9aa on #fff = 2.1:1, needs ≥4.5:1; darken to #555'. Stage findings to `write_task_note`. Do not write the report yet.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/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": "{{workPath}}/audit.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/audit.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/audit.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "audit",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "report"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "report",
+      "name": "Write the a11y report",
+      "description": "findings keyed to WCAG SCs with fixes",
+      "prompt": "Step 1: Open `{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md` and write a top-line verdict (Conformant / Partially-conformant / Non-conformant to WCAG 2.1 AA) with counts by severity. Step 2: Add a '## Findings' section; for each, write `### [SEVERITY] SC <number> (<Level>) — <element>` with what is wrong, the user impact, and the exact code fix. Order critical-first. Step 3: Add a '## Passing criteria' section listing the SCs checked and met, so coverage is auditable. Step 4: Add a '## Manual verification needed' section for items a static check cannot fully settle (e.g. screen-reader announcement quality). Every finding must cite a specific SC and element with a concrete remedy — no generic 'add ARIA'. On a loop-back, fix only the named gaps. `write_task_note` the report path and the severity counts.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/a11y-report.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": "{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md",
+            "bytes": 1500,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "at least one markdown heading",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "report",
+        "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 `{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md` and grade it against the scope WCAG checklist. Check EACH criterion and write PASS/FAIL with a one-line reason: (1) every checklist SC was assessed (found-and-reported or marked passing); (2) each finding cites a specific WCAG success-criterion number and level; (3) each finding names the affected element and a concrete code fix; (4) contrast findings include actual computed ratios; (5) keyboard operability and focus order were actually walked; (6) a passing-criteria section makes coverage auditable; (7) the verdict matches the findings. If any criterion fails, name the exact gap and loop back.\n\nThe deliverable lives in the project's artifacts drawer — open `{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md` with `read_artifact`, not `read_file`.\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: \"report\" })` 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": "{{workPath}}/a11y-report.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "report"
+    },
+    {
+      "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": "1.1.2",
+  "releasedAt": "2026-08-21T00:00:00Z",
+  "paramSchema": {
+    "type": "object",
+    "properties": {
+      "workPath": {
+        "type": "string",
+        "title": "Working folder",
+        "description": "Per-task working folder in the artifacts drawer. Defaults to this task's own folder so runs never collide; override with a stable name when you deliberately want runs to share files.",
+        "default": "{{task.dir}}"
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "minGezelVersion": "1.26233"
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/a1/a11y-audit/versions/1.1.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Accessibility Audit codebase eval",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the audit finds concrete WCAG failures across a seeded UI and leaves a source-cited remediation report.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "Use the Accessibility Audit craftbook for a whole-codebase maintenance pass. Review the seeded UI against WCAG 2.1 AA and write tasks/eval/a11y-report.md. Do not change the UI.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Accessibility Maintenance Eval",
+    "about": "A tiny dashboard UI with deliberate accessibility defects. Source files are authoritative and no network access is needed.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Find the seeded keyboard, labeling, semantic, image-text, and contrast defects; cite real files/elements and propose exact fixes in tasks/eval/a11y-report.md.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "src/App.tsx",
+        "content": "export function App() {\n  return <main>\n    <h1>Returns desk</h1>\n    <h3>Find an order</h3>\n    <img src=\"/returns.png\" />\n    <div className=\"lookup\" onClick={() => location.assign('/lookup')}>Look up order</div>\n    <input placeholder=\"Order number\" />\n    <div role=\"button\">Export exceptions</div>\n  </main>;\n}\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "src/styles.css",
+        "content": "body { background: #fff; color: #aaa; }\n.lookup { color: #aaa; background: #fff; }\n*:focus { outline: none; }\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Rae",
+      "role": "Reviewer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md cites the seeded UI and covers every deliberate WCAG failure with a concrete fix.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 1300,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "src/App\\.tsx|src/styles\\.css",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "cite real source"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "1\\.1\\.1",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "missing image alternative"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "1\\.3\\.1|4\\.1\\.2",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "labels and semantics"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "2\\.1\\.1|keyboard",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "keyboard operability"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "1\\.4\\.3|contrast",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "contrast"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "#aaa|ratio|4\\.5:1",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "measured contrast evidence"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+            "pattern": "outline|focus",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "focus visibility"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "tasks/eval/a11y-report.md",
+      "kind": "markdown"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "coverage",
+        "description": "The seeded WCAG failures and passing/unknown criteria are accounted for."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "evidence",
+        "description": "Findings cite concrete elements, source paths, and measured values."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "remediation",
+        "description": "Each issue includes a specific code-level fix."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "WCAG-specific findings",
+    "source evidence",
+    "concrete remediation"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/ab/ab-test-readout/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+{
+  "id": "ab-test-readout",
+  "name": "A/B Test Readout",
+  "description": "Analyze a controlled experiment and produce a decision-ready readout: does the variant beat control, by how much, and is it real? States the hypothesis, the primary metric, and the decision rule FIRST (to avoid p-hacking and metric-shopping), then computes lift, statistical significance, and confidence intervals as a data-analyst, then writes a plain-language ship/no-ship recommendation. Use this for an experiment analysis, A/B test results, significance testing, conversion-lift readout, or an experiment decision memo.\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 hypothesis (data-analyst) — lock the hypothesis, primary metric, and decision rule before looking → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/hypothesis-scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Analyze the experiment (data-analyst) — compute lift, significance, and confidence intervals → gated on `data/stats.json` (json)\n3. Write the readout (copywriter) — produce a plain-language ship/no-ship recommendation → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/readout.md` (markdown-report)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "hypothesis-scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "analyze an ab test",
+    "experiment readout",
+    "is this result significant",
+    "ab test results",
+    "ship or no ship from a test"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "hypothesis-scope",
+      "name": "Scope the hypothesis",
+      "description": "lock the hypothesis, primary metric, and decision rule before looking",
+      "prompt": "Define the experiment's contract BEFORE computing anything, to prevent metric-shopping. Step 1: state the hypothesis ('variant B increases checkout conversion vs control'). Step 2: name the ONE primary metric the decision rests on and how it's defined (conversions / exposures). Step 3: list guardrail metrics that must not regress. Step 4: state the decision rule up front (e.g. 'ship if lift is positive and significant at 95% and no guardrail drops > 2%'). Step 5: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('reports lift with a confidence interval', 'reports a significance test for the primary metric', 'checks sample size / power', 'gives a clear ship/no-ship tied to the decision rule', 'flags any guardrail regression'). Call write_task_note and write the hypothesis + metric + decision rule + checklist to {{workPath}}/hypothesis-scope.md.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/hypothesis-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": "data-analyst",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/hypothesis-scope.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/hypothesis-scope.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/hypothesis-scope.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "hypothesis-scope",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "analyze"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "analyze",
+      "name": "Analyze the experiment",
+      "description": "compute lift, significance, and confidence intervals",
+      "prompt": "Compute the statistics for the primary metric and guardrails. Step 1: for control and variant, report exposures, conversions, and the rate. Step 2: compute absolute and relative lift. Step 3: run the appropriate significance test (two-proportion z-test for a rate; report the p-value) and a confidence interval on the lift. Step 4: assess whether the sample size is adequate (was the experiment powered, or is it underpowered/peeking?). Step 5: compute the guardrail metrics and flag any regression. Step 6: apply the decision rule to reach a tentative verdict. Write the computed numbers to data/stats.json (rates, lift, p-value, CI, guardrails) and call write_task_note with the figures and the tentative call.",
+      "suggestedRole": "data-analyst",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "data/stats.json",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "json-valid"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "data/stats.json",
+            "bytes": 2
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkJsonValid",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "data/stats.json"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "analyze",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write the readout",
+      "description": "produce a plain-language ship/no-ship recommendation",
+      "prompt": "Write a decision-ready readout from the computed stats — no new numbers. Step 1: lead with the recommendation (Ship / Don't ship / Inconclusive) in the first sentence, tied to the decision rule. Step 2: state the lift with its confidence interval and whether it cleared significance, in plain language ('+8% conversion, 95% CI [3%, 13%], significant at p=0.01'). Step 3: note the guardrail check result. Step 4: caveat honestly — underpowered, short runtime, novelty effect, or a result too good to be true. Step 5: end with the concrete next action. Write the readout to {{workPath}}/readout.md and call write_task_note with the recommendation. On a loop-back, fix only the named gaps.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/readout.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": "{{workPath}}/readout.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/readout.md",
+            "bytes": 1500,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/readout.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "at least one markdown heading",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "write",
+        "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": "Read {{workPath}}/readout.md and check it against the scope. Verify: it leads with a clear ship/no-ship recommendation tied to the stated decision rule; it reports lift WITH a confidence interval; it reports a significance test for the primary metric; it addresses sample size / power; and it flags any guardrail regression. Re-check the headline lift and significance call against data/stats.json. Confirm the verdict actually follows from the decision rule (not metric-shopped). Write PASS/FAIL per criterion; any FAIL loops back to write.\n\nThe deliverable lives in the project's artifacts drawer — open `{{workPath}}/readout.md` with `read_artifact`, not `read_file`.\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: \"write\" })` 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": "{{workPath}}/readout.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "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": "1.0.2",
+  "releasedAt": "2026-08-21T00:00:00Z",
+  "paramSchema": {
+    "type": "object",
+    "properties": {
+      "workPath": {
+        "type": "string",
+        "title": "Working folder",
+        "description": "Per-task working folder in the artifacts drawer. Defaults to this task's own folder so runs never collide; override with a stable name when you deliberately want runs to share files.",
+        "default": "{{task.dir}}"
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "minGezelVersion": "1.26233"
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/ab/ab-test-readout/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+{
+  "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. `tasks/eval/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"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "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": "tasks/eval/readout.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 2000,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/readout.md",
+            "pattern": "Hypothesis|Decision rule|Recommendation|Guardrail|Next action",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/readout.md",
+            "pattern": "10,?000|1,?200|1,?325|80|103",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/readout.md",
+            "pattern": "12\\.0?%|13\\.25%|1\\.25|10\\.4",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/readout.md",
+            "pattern": "confidence|significant|p[- ]?value|95%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/readout.md",
+            "pattern": "refund request|guardrail|0\\.23|23 basis|basis points",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/readout.md",
+            "pattern": "do not ship|no-go|hold|do not launch|inconclusive",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "tasks/eval/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."
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}