@bendyline/gilde 0.1.38 → 0.1.39

package/data/craftbook-templates/re/regex-builder/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+{
+  "id": "regex-builder",
+  "name": "Build + Test a Tricky Regex",
+  "description": "Build a regular expression that matches exactly the right strings and rejects the wrong ones — specified with concrete should-match and should-NOT-match cases before a single character is written. Specs the cases FIRST — the positive examples, the tricky negative examples, edge cases, and the anchoring/flags — then builds the regex incrementally against those cases, then tests the full matrix including catastrophic-backtracking safety. Covers character classes, quantifiers, anchors, groups/captures, lookahead/behind, escaping, flags, and ReDoS-safe patterns validated by a should-match / should-not-match table.\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. Spec the cases (planner) — lock should-match / should-NOT-match examples → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/spec.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Build the regex (developer) — construct the pattern against the cases → gated on `src/regex.js` (code-module)\n3. Test the matrix (developer) — test every match/no-match case + ReDoS safety → gated on `src/regex.test.js` (code-with-tests)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "spec",
+  "triggers": [
+    "build a regex",
+    "write a regular expression",
+    "match a pattern",
+    "validate with regex",
+    "tricky regex"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "spec",
+      "name": "Spec the cases",
+      "description": "lock should-match / should-NOT-match examples",
+      "prompt": "Specify the regex by examples before writing it — a regex is only correct relative to its cases. Step 1: Describe in words exactly what should match and what should not. Step 2: Write a SHOULD-MATCH list of concrete example strings, including edge cases (boundaries, minimum/maximum, unusual-but-valid forms). Step 3: Write a SHOULD-NOT-MATCH list of tricky near-misses that a naive pattern would wrongly accept (this is where most regexes fail). Step 4: Decide anchoring (full-string vs substring), case sensitivity, and any other flags, plus whether captures are needed. Step 5: Write a numbered acceptance-criteria checklist (e.g. 'every should-match string matches', 'every should-NOT-match string is rejected', 'the pattern is anchored as specified', 'no catastrophic backtracking on adversarial input'). `write_task_note` the two case lists + flags + checklist and write the same to the produces path.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/spec.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}}/spec.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/spec.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/spec.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "spec",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "build"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "build",
+      "name": "Build the regex",
+      "description": "construct the pattern against the cases",
+      "prompt": "Construct the regex incrementally against the spec. Step 1: Build the pattern piece by piece (character classes, quantifiers, groups), checking it against the should-match and should-not-match lists as you go rather than writing one big pattern blind. Step 2: Apply the specified anchors and flags, and add capture groups only where needed. Step 3: Escape special characters correctly and prefer specific classes over greedy `.*` to keep it precise. Step 4: Avoid nested/ambiguous quantifiers that cause catastrophic backtracking (ReDoS); prefer atomic/possessive or restructure if the engine supports it. Step 5: Deliver the final pattern plus a brief annotation of what each part does, written to the produces path as a small module exporting the regex and a `test(input)` helper. On a loop-back, fix only the failing cases. `write_task_note` the pattern and which criteria now pass.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "src/regex.js",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "src/regex.js",
+            "bytes": 200
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "src/regex.js",
+            "sniff": "nonempty"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "esmImports",
+            "file": "src/regex.js"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sourceParses",
+            "file": "src/regex.js"
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "build",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "test"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "test",
+      "name": "Test the matrix",
+      "description": "test every match/no-match case + ReDoS safety",
+      "prompt": "Write tests covering the full case matrix. Step 1: For every should-match string, assert the regex matches. Step 2: For every should-NOT-match string, assert the regex does NOT match — this is the part that catches over-eager patterns. Step 3: Assert anchoring behaves (e.g. a valid substring inside junk is rejected if full-string anchoring was specified). Step 4: Add a ReDoS-safety check: feed an adversarial input (long repeated prefix) and assert matching completes quickly rather than hanging. `write_task_note` the test file path and pass/fail count.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "src/regex.test.js",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "src/regex.js",
+            "bytes": 200
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "src/regex.js",
+            "sniff": "nonempty"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "esmImports",
+            "file": "src/regex.js"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sourceParses",
+            "file": "src/regex.js"
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "test",
+        "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": "Run the tests against the full case matrix. For EACH acceptance criterion: confirm every should-match string matches, confirm every should-NOT-match string is rejected, confirm anchoring/flags behave as specified, and confirm no catastrophic backtracking on adversarial input. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion; a single wrongly-accepted should-not-match string is a FAIL.\n\nThen route — this is the whole point of the loop:\n\n- **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"finish\" })`.\n- **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"build\" })` to loop back. The builder fixes exactly those gaps.\n\nNever route to `finish` while any criterion is unmet. The build phase's completion gate already blocked a grossly-incomplete deliverable; your job is the judgment an automated check cannot make (does it actually work, read well, look right). After ~3 unproductive loops, stop and report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS so the user can step in.",
+      "suggestedRole": "reviewer",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "src/regex.js"
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "build"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "finish",
+      "name": "Finish",
+      "description": "All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE.",
+      "prompt": "Every acceptance criterion passed. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes via `write_task_note`: what was built, the deliverable path(s), and a one-line confirmation that each criterion is met. Then report DONE.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "terminal": true
+    }
+  ],
+  "version": "1.0.2",
+  "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/re/regex-builder/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Build + Test a Tricky Regex smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Build + Test a Tricky Regex craftbook using the code generic harness.",
+  "tags": [
+    "code"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "We need a small Node helper for this — the requirments are in source/requirements.md. Put it in src/solution.mjs.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Build + Test a Tricky Regex Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for regex-builder. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/src/solution.mjs.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Build + Test a Tricky Regex craftbook/template, read the seeded local fixtures, and write src/solution.mjs without network calls, real credentials, or live services.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/brief.md",
+        "content": "# Build + Test a Tricky Regex 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: regex-builder - Build + Test a Tricky Regex.\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/requirements.md",
+        "content": "# Runner Requirements\n\nBuild a dependency-free Node ESM helper for Boreal Desk support operations. Export at least one function. Include a tiny self-test section using node:assert or an equivalent assertion helper. Use fixture values for 18 -> 6 hour response time and 14.2 -> 8.9 refund leakage.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Jules",
+      "role": "Developer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "src/solution.mjs is a local ESM module with basic self-test scaffolding.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "src/solution.mjs",
+        "kind": "code-with-tests",
+        "minBytes": 1500,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "esmImports",
+            "file": "src/solution.mjs"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "src/solution.mjs",
+            "pattern": "export\\s+(function|const|class)|export\\s*\\{",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "src/solution.mjs",
+            "pattern": "assert|test|describe|it|expect",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "src/solution.mjs",
+            "pattern": "18|6|14\\.2|8\\.9|Boreal",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "src/solution.mjs",
+      "kind": "typescript"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "correctness",
+        "description": "The module does what the requirements ask, with sensible edge handling."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "verification",
+        "description": "Self-tests exercise real behavior, not trivial truths."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "clarity",
+        "description": "Exports, naming, and structure make the module usable without reading every line."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "robustness",
+        "description": "Invalid input and boundary cases fail loudly rather than silently."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "runnable ESM",
+    "test scaffolding",
+    "local fixtures"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/re/release-announcement/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+{
+  "id": "release-announcement",
+  "name": "Release Announcement",
+  "description": "Write a public-facing release announcement that turns a shipped version into a compelling story for users — a blog-post / email-style piece that leads with the headline value, shows the marquee features with concrete before/after benefits, links to the full release notes and upgrade path, and ends with a clear call to action. A planner picks the 2-4 things actually worth announcing and the audience/channel, a copywriter writes the benefit-led announcement in the brand voice, and a reviewer checks it is accurate, on-message, and that every claim traces to a real shipped change. Use this for product launch posts, 'what's new' announcements, version launch emails, and changelog-to-marketing translations.\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 announcement (planner) — pick the marquee items, audience, and channel → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Write the announcement (copywriter) — benefit-led launch story in the brand voice → gated on `announcement.md` (markdown-doc)\n3. Review for accuracy and message (reviewer) — verify claims trace to shipped changes and tone is on-brand → 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": [
+    "announce the release",
+    "what's new post",
+    "launch announcement",
+    "blog post for the new version",
+    "release marketing copy"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the announcement",
+      "description": "pick the marquee items, audience, and channel",
+      "prompt": "1. Review the release contents (changelog/release notes) and pick the 2-4 changes genuinely worth announcing — the ones users will care about, not an exhaustive list. 2. Identify the audience and channel (blog, email, in-app) and the single headline benefit of the release. 3. For each marquee item, capture the concrete user benefit and a before/after framing ('used to take X, now Y'). 4. Decide the call to action (upgrade, try it, read the docs) and the link to the full release notes. 5. Set the tone to the brand voice and a target length appropriate to the channel. 6. Good looks like: a short brief listing the headline, the 2-4 marquee items each with a user benefit, the audience/channel, the CTA, and the release-notes link. Write this as an acceptance-criteria checklist ('leads with the headline benefit', 'each marquee item states a user benefit not a feature spec', 'every claim traces to a real shipped change', 'has a clear CTA and a link to full notes', 'matches the brand voice and channel length') plus the brief to the notes file via write_task_note AND to {{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": "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": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write the announcement",
+      "description": "benefit-led launch story in the brand voice",
+      "prompt": "1. Open {{workPath}}/scope.md and write the announcement leading with the headline benefit in the title and opening line — hook first, not 'We are pleased to announce version X'. 2. Give each marquee item its own short section with a benefit-led subhead and the before/after framing, written for users not engineers. 3. Keep the voice consistent with the brand and the length appropriate to the channel; scannable subheads and short paragraphs. 4. Include the call to action prominently and link out to the full release notes / upgrade guide. 5. Do not over-claim or mention anything not actually shipped. 6. Good looks like: a tight, benefit-led announcement a non-technical reader enjoys, every marquee item from scope.md covered with its benefit, a clear CTA, and a notes link. Write the announcement to announcement.md.\n\nBefore working, open the artifact input `{{workPath}}/scope.md` with `read_artifact`; do not look for it in the workspace.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "{{workPath}}/scope.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        }
+      ],
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "announcement.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "announcement.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "write",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "review"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "review",
+      "name": "Review for accuracy and message",
+      "description": "verify claims trace to shipped changes and tone is on-brand",
+      "prompt": "1. Open announcement.md and cross-check every feature/benefit claim against {{workPath}}/scope.md and the actual release — flag anything over-claimed, vague, or not actually shipped. 2. Confirm it leads with the headline benefit and that each marquee item is framed as a user benefit, not a raw feature spec. 3. Verify the CTA is present and the link to full release notes resolves. 4. Check the voice is on-brand and the length fits the channel; flag engineer-speak that leaked into a user-facing piece. 5. Write a PASS/FAIL per acceptance criterion with specifics; any failure routes back to the write phase. Write findings to {{workPath}}/review.md.\n\nBefore working, open the artifact input `{{workPath}}/scope.md` with `read_artifact`; do not look for it in the workspace.\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",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "{{workPath}}/scope.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        },
+        {
+          "file": "announcement.md"
+        }
+      ],
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/review.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "announcement.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": "Open announcement.md and verify it against {{workPath}}/scope.md, PASS/FAIL each criterion. Confirm: (a) the title and opening lead with the headline benefit; (b) each marquee item from scope.md has a benefit-led section, not a raw feature spec; (c) every claim traces to a real shipped change with no over-claiming; (d) a clear CTA and a link to the full release notes are present; (e) the voice matches the brand and the length fits the channel. Any FAIL routes back to the write phase.\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": "announcement.md"
+        }
+      ],
+      "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/re/release-announcement/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Benefit-led product release announcement",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the release-announcement craftbook selects marquee user-facing changes and turns them into benefit-led launch copy.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Release Announcement Eval` project, read `source/release-notes.md` and write `announcement.md` for HarborCRM 3.8.0. Lead with the headline benefit, cover 2-4 marquee items with before/after benefits, include a CTA and link to full release notes, and exclude internal-only changes.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Release Announcement Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for release-announcement. Release notes source is workspace/source/release-notes.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Write benefit-led release marketing copy grounded in shipped changes, with CTA and no internal noise.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/release-notes.md",
+        "content": "# HarborCRM 3.8.0 release inventory\n\nFull notes link: https://docs.harborcrm.example/releases/3.8.0\nAudience: support leads and account admins.\nMarquee changes:\n- Saved invoice filters: finance teams can reopen the exact invoice queue they use every week instead of rebuilding filters.\n- Webhook retry visibility: admins can see next retry time and failure reason in one panel.\n- Duplicate merge fix: CSV imports no longer create duplicate customer merge suggestions.\nUpgrade note: integrations must rename HC_WEBHOOK_SECRET to PAYMENTS_WEBHOOK_SECRET before deploy.\nInternal-only: reducer file rename, lint runner upgrade, dev dependency bump.\nCTA: Upgrade to 3.8.0 and review the webhook secret migration guide.\nBrand voice: calm, practical, no hype.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Sofie",
+      "role": "Product Marketer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "workspace/announcement.md is a benefit-led release announcement with marquee shipped changes, CTA, full-notes link, migration note, and no internal noise.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "announcement.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-doc",
+        "minBytes": 1200,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "HarborCRM 3\\.8\\.0|saved invoice filters|webhook retry|duplicate merge",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "before|after|benefit|finance teams|admins",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "HC_WEBHOOK_SECRET|PAYMENTS_WEBHOOK_SECRET|migration",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "https://docs\\.harborcrm\\.example/releases/3\\.8\\.0|Upgrade to 3\\.8\\.0",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "notContains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "reducer|lint runner|dependency bump|dev dependency",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "notContains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "\\p{Extended_Pictographic}",
+            "flags": "u",
+            "label": "avoid emoji flourishes in the requested calm, practical brand voice"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "notContains",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "pattern": "missed revenue|human error|Mean Time To Resolution|MTTR|guarantee(?:s|d|ing)?|higher quality dataset|strategic growth|maximum efficiency|minimal friction|prolonged downtime|frustrated support staff|essential improvements|smarter|instant access|critical data|speeds up(?: the)? auditing process|clean and accurate|for all users|seamless",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "remove invented operational-impact claims not present in the release inventory"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "unsupportedClaims",
+            "file": "announcement.md",
+            "sourceFiles": [
+              "source/release-notes.md"
+            ],
+            "patterns": [
+              {
+                "pattern": "essential improvements",
+                "label": "avoid unsupported broad-value claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "smarter",
+                "label": "avoid hype not present in the source voice"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "significant(?:ly)?",
+                "label": "avoid unsupported magnitude claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "missed revenue",
+                "label": "avoid invented revenue claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "human error",
+                "label": "avoid invented cause claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "instant access",
+                "label": "avoid invented speed claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "critical data",
+                "label": "avoid invented importance claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "speeds up(?: the)? auditing process",
+                "label": "avoid invented process claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "data accuracy|clean and accurate",
+                "label": "avoid overclaiming data-quality outcomes"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "for all users",
+                "label": "avoid invented audience scope"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "Mean Time To Resolution|MTTR",
+                "label": "avoid invented operational metrics"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "guarantee(?:s|d|ing)?",
+                "label": "avoid guaranteed outcomes"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "higher quality dataset",
+                "label": "avoid invented data-quality outcomes"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "strategic growth",
+                "label": "avoid invented business outcomes"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "maximum efficiency",
+                "label": "avoid unsupported efficiency claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "minimal friction",
+                "label": "avoid unsupported ease claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "prolonged downtime",
+                "label": "avoid invented outage claims"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "frustrated support staff",
+                "label": "avoid invented support-team impact"
+              },
+              {
+                "pattern": "seamless",
+                "label": "avoid unsupported ease claims"
+              }
+            ],
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "announcement.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": [
+    "marquee selection",
+    "benefit framing",
+    "no internal noise"
+  ]
+}