@bendyline/gilde 0.1.37 → 0.1.39

package/data/craftbook-templates/co/content-accuracy-review/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Claim-level accuracy review from evidence pack",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the content-accuracy-review craftbook extracts checkable claims and writes sourced true/false/misleading/unverifiable verdicts.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Content Accuracy Review Eval` project, read only `source/article.md` and `source/evidence-pack.md`, then write `tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md`. Extract the six checkable claims in the article, rate each true/false/misleading/unverifiable, cite the evidence pack, give corrections, and include an overall trust rating. Do not add claims, companies, sources, or metrics beyond the seeded article and evidence pack.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Content Accuracy Review Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for content-accuracy-review. The draft article and evidence pack are seeded in workspace/source.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Produce a claim-by-claim accuracy review with verdicts, corrections, sources, and a trust rating.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/article.md",
+        "content": "# Draft article\n\nHarborCRM launched guided returns intake in February 2026. The pilot covered all SKUs and reduced median first response from 18 hours to 4 hours. Refund leakage fell from 14.2% to 8.9%. Support escalations dropped 21% after agents received recommended resolution scripts. The company guarantees national rollout in July.\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/evidence-pack.md",
+        "content": "# Evidence pack\n\n- Launch memo: guided returns intake pilot launched in March 2026, not February.\n- Pilot scope: 18 home-office accessory SKUs, not all SKUs.\n- Metrics dashboard: median first response improved from 18 hours to 6 hours.\n- Metrics dashboard: refund leakage fell from 14.2% to 8.9%.\n- Support report: escalations dropped 21% after recommended resolution scripts were added.\n- Roadmap note: national rollout is proposed for July but not guaranteed.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Kiki",
+      "role": "Fact Checker"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "workspace/accuracy-review.md extracts seeded claims, assigns verdicts, cites evidence, corrects false/misleading claims, and gives an overall trust rating.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 1600,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "TRUE|FALSE|MISLEADING|UNVERIFIABLE|trust rating",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "February|March|all SKUs|18 home-office",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "18\\s*hours|4\\s*hours|6\\s*hours|14\\.2%|8\\.9%|21%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "correction|correct statement|source|evidence",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "guarantees national rollout|proposed for July",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "February[\\s\\S]{0,250}False|False[\\s\\S]{0,250}February",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "all SKUs[\\s\\S]{0,250}False|False[\\s\\S]{0,250}all SKUs",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "4\\s*hours[\\s\\S]{0,250}(False|Misleading)|(False|Misleading)[\\s\\S]{0,250}4\\s*hours",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "14\\.2%[\\s\\S]{0,250}True|8\\.9%[\\s\\S]{0,250}True|True[\\s\\S]{0,250}14\\.2%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "21%[\\s\\S]{0,250}True|True[\\s\\S]{0,250}21%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "guarantees[\\s\\S]{0,300}(False|Misleading)|(False|Misleading)[\\s\\S]{0,300}guarantees",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "notContains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+            "pattern": "Q3|AlphaCorp|enterprise software|cash reserve|dominant market|CEO announced|RESTful API|stress tests",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "do not invent review claims or evidence beyond the seeded article"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "tasks/eval/accuracy-review.md",
+      "kind": "markdown"
+    },
+    "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": [
+    "claim extraction",
+    "evidence-backed verdicts",
+    "corrections"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/co/contract-template/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+{
+  "id": "contract-template",
+  "name": "Contract Template (Non-Legal-Advice)",
+  "description": "Draft a reusable, plain-language agreement template — service agreement, NDA, freelance contract, or terms — with clearly marked fill-in fields, structured numbered clauses, and a prominent non-legal-advice disclaimer. Scopes the parties, obligations, and risk allocation FIRST, drafts clear enforceable-style clauses with placeholders for the variable terms, then has a reviewer check completeness and flag anything that genuinely needs a lawyer. NOT legal advice — every output must say so. Use for templated agreements you will adapt and have counsel review.\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 agreement (planner) — parties, obligations, term, payment, risk allocation, fill-in fields → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Draft the clauses (copywriter) — clear numbered clauses with marked placeholders + disclaimer → gated on `contract.md` (markdown-doc)\n3. Review the template (reviewer) — check clause completeness, placeholders, and lawyer-needed flags → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/review.md` (markdown-notes)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "contract template",
+    "draft an nda",
+    "service agreement template",
+    "freelance contract",
+    "terms template",
+    "agreement document"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the agreement",
+      "description": "parties, obligations, term, payment, risk allocation, fill-in fields",
+      "prompt": "Map the deal structure before drafting clauses. Step 1: identify the agreement type and the parties and their roles. Step 2: list each party's core obligations and what each receives. Step 3: define the variable terms that must become FILL-IN FIELDS (names, dates, amounts, term length, jurisdiction) and mark them as placeholders like [PARTY_A_NAME]. Step 4: decide the risk-allocation clauses the template needs (confidentiality, IP ownership, liability limits, termination, dispute resolution, governing law) appropriate to the type. Step 5: note that this is a TEMPLATE and not legal advice — a disclaimer is mandatory in the output. Step 6: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('all parties + roles defined', 'every variable is a marked fill-in field', 'standard protective clauses present for this type', 'termination + governing-law clauses included', 'a prominent non-legal-advice disclaimer is required'). Write the structure + field list + checklist via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/scope.md. No clause prose 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": "planner",
+      "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": "draft"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "draft",
+      "name": "Draft the clauses",
+      "description": "clear numbered clauses with marked placeholders + disclaimer",
+      "prompt": "Draft the agreement as contract.md in clear, plain language. Step 1: lead with a bold, unmissable disclaimer: this is a template for informational purposes, NOT legal advice, and should be reviewed by a qualified attorney before use. Step 2: write a preamble identifying the parties using the [PLACEHOLDER] fields and the effective date. Step 3: write the body as NUMBERED clauses (1, 1.1, 2 ...) — one obligation/topic per clause — covering scope of work/subject, payment terms, term and termination, confidentiality, IP ownership, liability/indemnity, dispute resolution, and governing law, each appropriate to the agreement type. Step 4: keep every variable as a clearly marked fill-in field so the user adapts it safely; add brief [GUIDANCE: ...] notes where a choice must be made. Step 5: end with a signature block (party, name, title, date lines). Use precise but readable language; avoid ambiguity in obligations. On a loop-back, fix ONLY the named gaps. Write the path + clause count via write_task_note.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "contract.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "contract.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "draft",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "review"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "review",
+      "name": "Review the template",
+      "description": "check clause completeness, placeholders, and lawyer-needed flags",
+      "prompt": "Review the template for completeness and honesty about its limits. Step 1: confirm the non-legal-advice disclaimer is present and prominent. Step 2: verify every scoped clause type is present and every variable term is a clearly marked fill-in field (no hard-coded names/amounts leaked in). Step 3: check the signature block and that termination + governing-law clauses exist. Step 4: flag any clause that genuinely requires a lawyer's judgment (e.g. liability caps, jurisdiction-specific enforceability) with a [LAWYER REVIEW] note rather than overstating certainty. Step 5: list concrete gaps with the clause number and fix, recorded as PASS/FAIL against the scope checklist. Write the findings via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/review.md. Gaps must be fixed in the draft phase before this passes.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/review.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}}/review.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "contract.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "review",
+        "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 contract template against the locked criteria. Step 1: read contract.md. Step 2: confirm FIRST that a prominent non-legal-advice disclaimer is present — if missing, FAIL immediately and loop back. Step 3: check EACH remaining criterion: parties + roles defined via placeholders, every variable is a clearly marked fill-in field, standard protective clauses for this type are present, termination + governing-law clauses included, clauses are numbered and unambiguous, and a signature block exists. Step 4: confirm lawyer-judgment items carry a [LAWYER REVIEW] flag rather than false certainty, folding in {{workPath}}/review.md. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion with the offending clause 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: \"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": "contract.md"
+        }
+      ],
+      "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": "1.0.2",
+  "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/co/contract-template/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Plain-language service agreement template",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the contract-template craftbook produces a reusable template with placeholders, protective clauses, and a prominent non-legal-advice disclaimer.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Contract Template Eval` project, read `source/deal-brief.md` and write `contract.md`: a plain-language service agreement template for a bookkeeping cleanup engagement. Include marked fill-in fields, numbered clauses, signature block, lawyer-review flags, and a prominent non-legal-advice disclaimer.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Contract Template Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for contract-template. Deal structure is in workspace/source/deal-brief.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Draft a reusable service agreement template with placeholders, clauses, disclaimer, lawyer-review flags, and no hard-coded final legal advice.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/deal-brief.md",
+        "content": "# Deal brief\n\nAgreement type: bookkeeping cleanup service agreement.\nParties: provider and client should remain placeholders.\nVariable terms: [PROVIDER_NAME], [CLIENT_NAME], [EFFECTIVE_DATE], [PROJECT_FEE], [PAYMENT_SCHEDULE], [TERM_LENGTH], [GOVERNING_LAW_STATE].\nRequired clauses: scope of work, client responsibilities, payment, term and termination, confidentiality, IP ownership of deliverables, limitation of liability, dispute resolution, governing law, signature block.\nFlag for lawyer review: liability cap, governing law, indemnity/dispute language.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Lotte",
+      "role": "Document Drafter"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "workspace/contract.md is a placeholder-driven agreement template with disclaimer, numbered clauses, signature block, and lawyer-review flags.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "contract.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-doc",
+        "minBytes": 2800,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "pattern": "not legal advice|qualified attorney|lawyer review",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "pattern": "\\[PROVIDER_NAME\\]|\\[CLIENT_NAME\\]|\\[EFFECTIVE_DATE\\]|\\[PROJECT_FEE\\]",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "pattern": "confidentiality|IP ownership|termination|governing law|dispute",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "pattern": "limitation of liability|indemnity|\\[LAWYER REVIEW\\]",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "contract.md",
+            "pattern": "Signature|Name|Title|Date",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "contract.md",
+      "kind": "markdown"
+    },
+    "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": [
+    "disclaimer",
+    "placeholder discipline",
+    "clause completeness"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/co/cookbook-layout/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+{
+  "id": "cookbook-layout",
+  "name": "Lay Out the Cookbook",
+  "description": "Assemble the heirloom: every tested recipe in its chapter, the provenance kept beside the food — whose recipe it was, what table it came from — chapter intros in the family's voice, print-ready pages. The book that exists because someone finally sat down and made it. Locks the inclusion rule FIRST — tested recipes in, untested listed for the next round, never silently dropped — then lays out the chapters, then proofs every eligible recipe made it in with its story intact. Use for laying out the family cookbook, the heirloom recipe book, 'print the cookbook', and a recipe book for the grandchildren.\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 book (kitchen-master) — inclusion rule from the shelf, chapter order, page rules → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Lay out the book (designer) — cover, chapters, one recipe per page with provenance → gated on `book/cookbook.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": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "lay out the cookbook",
+    "make the family cookbook",
+    "print the recipe book",
+    "heirloom cookbook",
+    "put the recipes into a book"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the book",
+      "description": "inclusion rule from the shelf, chapter order, page rules",
+      "prompt": "Read the shelf before laying out a page. Step 1: read recipes.json from the workspace and the recipe files under recipes/ — which recipes are tested and which still pending. Step 2: lock the inclusion rule: tested recipes go in; untested ones go on a short 'still to test' page at the back — listed, never silently dropped. Step 3: settle the chapter order with the owner — by course, by season, or by the family line each recipe came down — and the page rules: one recipe per page, the provenance line under every title, a short chapter intro in the family's voice, print styles throughout. Step 4: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('every tested recipe appears in its chapter with its provenance line', 'untested recipes listed at the back, not dropped', 'the family's phrasings preserved, not rewritten into recipe-site prose', 'chapters ordered as agreed', 'the book prints cleanly, one recipe per page'). Call write_task_note with the tested/untested counts + chapter order + checklist and write {{workPath}}/scope.md.\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": "kitchen-master",
+      "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": "layout"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "layout",
+      "name": "Lay out the book",
+      "description": "cover, chapters, one recipe per page with provenance",
+      "prompt": "Lay out the cookbook as one print-ready HTML file at book/cookbook.html. Step 1: the cover and a contents page listing the chapters. Step 2: each chapter opens with a short intro in the family's voice — two or three sentences that sound like the kitchen, not a food blog. Step 3: one recipe per page: the title, the provenance line right under it — whose recipe, where it came from — then ingredients and the method in the family's own phrasing from the recipe files, preserved word for word where it matters. Step 4: the 'still to test' page at the back listing the untested recipes by name. Step 5: print styles throughout — an @page rule, page breaks so every recipe starts fresh, type set for reading at arm's length in a working kitchen. Call write_task_note with the recipe count and the chapter list.",
+      "suggestedRole": "designer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "book/cookbook.html",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "html-complete"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "book/cookbook.html",
+            "bytes": 8000
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "htmlLint",
+            "file": "book/cookbook.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "cssMinBytes",
+            "bytes": 650,
+            "file": "book/cookbook.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "book/cookbook.html",
+            "pattern": "@page|@media\\s+print|page-break|break-after",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "print CSS"
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkHtmlComplete",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "book/cookbook.html"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "layout",
+        "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 book/cookbook.html against recipes.json and the recipes/ files and verify every criterion from {{workPath}}/scope.md: every tested recipe appears in its chapter with its provenance line — spot-check three against the shelf, a recipe that lost its story has lost the point — untested recipes are listed at the back and none silently dropped, the family's phrasings survive in the methods, chapters run in the agreed order, and the page styling would print one recipe per page. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion; on any failure, name the recipe and the gap and loop back to layout.\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: \"layout\" })` 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": "book/cookbook.html"
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "layout"
+    },
+    {
+      "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"
+}