@bendyline/gilde 0.1.38 → 0.1.39

package/data/craftbook-templates/co/corpus-synthesis/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Cross-document synthesis from four notes",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the corpus-synthesis craftbook reads every document, organizes by theme, cites sources, and surfaces contradictions.",
+  "tags": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Corpus Synthesis Eval` project, read every file under `source/corpus/` and write `tasks/eval/synthesis.md` answering: what should HarborCRM change before expanding guided returns intake? Organize by theme, cite sources [1]-[4], surface contradictions/open questions, and do not write a file-by-file summary. Use only facts from the four seeded notes. Do not invent inventory systems, product defects, return-rate targets, accounting treatments, SLA durations, or operational details beyond the corpus.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Corpus Synthesis Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for corpus-synthesis. Four short source documents are in workspace/source/corpus.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Synthesize all seeded documents into a thematic answer with source citations, contradictions, and open questions.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/corpus/1-support.md",
+        "content": "[1] Support notes: Guided intake reduced repetitive questions, but status silence after photo submission is now the top complaint. Agents want auto-status emails and clearer reason codes."
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/corpus/2-warehouse.md",
+        "content": "[2] Warehouse notes: barcode exceptions slow return processing. Training is needed before national rollout. Monday mornings breach SLA when photo review queue is full."
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/corpus/3-finance.md",
+        "content": "[3] Finance notes: refund leakage fell from 14.2% to 8.9%, but Finance requires a weekly exception export before approving automation."
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/corpus/4-product.md",
+        "content": "[4] Product notes: West warehouse expansion is preferred for 30 days. Product wants to defer national rollout until exports are reliable, while Sales wants a July national launch."
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Maren",
+      "role": "Research Synthesizer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "workspace/synthesis.md is organized by theme, cites all four source docs, surfaces contradictions/open questions, and avoids per-file summaries.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 1700,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "\\[1\\]|\\[2\\]|\\[3\\]|\\[4\\]",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "status silence|barcode|Finance|exception export|West warehouse",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "status silence[\\s\\S]{0,400}auto-status emails|auto-status emails[\\s\\S]{0,400}status silence|reason codes",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "include support status-silence and auto-status/reason-code needs"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "barcode[\\s\\S]{0,400}training|training[\\s\\S]{0,400}barcode|Monday[\\s\\S]{0,250}SLA",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "include warehouse barcode training or Monday SLA risk"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "Finance[\\s\\S]{0,400}weekly exception export|weekly exception export[\\s\\S]{0,400}Finance",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "include Finance weekly exception export approval dependency"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "West warehouse[\\s\\S]{0,400}30[ -]?days?|30[ -]?days?[\\s\\S]{0,400}West warehouse",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "include the 30-day West warehouse expansion recommendation"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "Sales[\\s\\S]{0,500}July[\\s\\S]{0,500}(Product|defer|contradiction|trade-off)|Product[\\s\\S]{0,500}(Sales|July)",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "surface Product vs Sales rollout tension"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "theme|recommendation|open questions|contradictions|trade-off",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "14\\.2%|8\\.9%|30 days|July",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "notContains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "Document 1 summary|File 1 summary|source-by-source",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "notContains",
+            "file": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+            "pattern": "PLM|resalable|restocking fees|warranty budget|target return rate|defect rate|returned goods inventory|dynamic fee|slotting|inventory management|SLA[^\\n]{0,120}30 days|30 days[^\\n]{0,120}SLA",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "do not invent systems, accounting treatments, defect metrics, or SLA durations beyond the seeded corpus"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "tasks/eval/synthesis.md",
+      "kind": "markdown"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "accuracy",
+        "description": "Computed figures are correct against the seeded records."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "grounding",
+        "description": "Every claim traces to the seeded data — nothing invented."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "structure",
+        "description": "Tables and sections make the analysis checkable at a glance."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "actionability",
+        "description": "Recommendations follow from the findings and are concretely doable."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "full corpus coverage",
+    "theme synthesis",
+    "source citations"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/co/cover-letter/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+{
+  "id": "cover-letter",
+  "name": "Tailored Cover Letter",
+  "description": "Write a tailored, one-page cover letter that maps a candidate's real background to a specific job's requirements: it first scopes the role's key requirements, the company hook, and the 3-4 strongest matching proof points from the applicant's experience, then drafts a focused letter with a specific opening, evidence-backed body paragraphs, and a confident close. Covers cover letter, job application letter, motivation letter, application writing, and personalized cover letter. Scoping the role-to-experience mapping before writing is the point: a small model that picks the strongest evidence for THIS job avoids the generic, one-size-fits-all letter that could be sent anywhere and lists duties instead of proving fit.\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. Fit scope (planner) — map role requirements to the strongest proof points → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Draft the letter (copywriter) — write the tailored one-page letter to the fit map → gated on `cover-letter.md` (markdown-doc)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "write a cover letter",
+    "job application letter",
+    "tailored cover letter",
+    "application letter",
+    "motivation letter"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Fit scope",
+      "description": "map role requirements to the strongest proof points",
+      "prompt": "1) Extract the role's 3-5 KEY requirements from the job description (skills, experience, traits the employer most wants). 2) Identify a genuine hook about the company (mission, product, recent news) for the opening — generic flattery is out of scope. 3) From the candidate's background, pick the 3-4 STRONGEST matching achievements, each with a concrete, quantified result (not a duty). 4) Note the hiring manager name if known, and the target role title. 5) Decide tone (formal vs warm) to match the company. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist (e.g. 'opening names the specific role/company hook'; 'each body point proves a requirement with a concrete result'; 'no generic filler that could apply to any job'; 'one page / 250-350 words'; 'confident close with a call to interview'). Use write_task_note for the fit map + checklist, and write the same to the produces path. No letter 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 letter",
+      "description": "write the tailored one-page letter to the fit map",
+      "prompt": "Write the cover letter from the fit map. 1) Salutation (named manager if known). 2) Opening paragraph: state the role and lead with the specific company hook and why the candidate is excited — concrete, not generic. 3) Body (1-2 paragraphs): for each key requirement, show the matching achievement with its quantified result, mapping experience directly to what the job needs. 4) Brief paragraph on fit/culture if relevant. 5) Confident close: reiterate value and request an interview. Keep it to one page (250-350 words), first person, active voice, no clichés ('hard worker', 'team player' without proof). Output as markdown. Save to the produces path and note the word count.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "cover-letter.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "cover-letter.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "cover-letter.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "draft",
+        "maxAttempts": 4
+      },
+      "next": "evaluate"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Evaluate",
+      "description": "Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.",
+      "prompt": "Read cover-letter.md against the fit map and job description. Check EACH criterion and write PASS/FAIL: (a) the opening names the specific role and a genuine company hook; (b) each body point proves a job requirement with a concrete, quantified result; (c) no generic filler that could apply to any job; (d) length is one page (250-350 words); (e) confident close with an interview ask; (f) active voice, no unproven clichés. A letter that could be mailed to any employer or just lists duties FAILS — loop back to draft.\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": "cover-letter.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/cover-letter/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Tailored cover letter from role and resume notes",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the cover-letter craftbook maps role requirements to real candidate proof points before drafting a tailored letter.",
+  "tags": [
+    "html-page"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Cover Letter Eval` project, read `source/job.md` and `source/resume-notes.md`, then write `cover-letter.md` for Avery Chen applying to Operations Automation Manager at Harbor & Finch. The letter must be tailored, one page, cite three concrete proof points, map them to role requirements, include a company hook, and avoid generic filler.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Cover Letter Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for the cover-letter craftbook. Job and resume notes are under workspace/source.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Produce a tailored one-page cover letter mapping Avery Chen proof points to Harbor & Finch role requirements.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/job.md",
+        "content": "# Role: Operations Automation Manager, Harbor & Finch\n\nRequirements: design workflow automations, partner with support and warehouse teams, report operational metrics, lead pilots without disrupting daily work. Company hook: Harbor & Finch is expanding a returns-desk automation pilot after measurable support improvements.\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/resume-notes.md",
+        "content": "# Avery Chen Resume Notes\n\n- Led a two-warehouse barcode exception pilot that cut manual lookup time by 38%.\n- Built weekly exception exports for Finance using SQL and CSV automation.\n- Partnered with support leads to reduce duplicate status tickets by 22%.\n- Trained 34 warehouse associates on new intake workflows.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Eva",
+      "role": "Writer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "workspace/cover-letter.md is tailored to the seeded role and candidate evidence with company hook and concrete proof points.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "cover-letter.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-doc",
+        "minBytes": 1200,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "cover-letter.md",
+            "pattern": "Avery Chen|Harbor & Finch|Operations Automation Manager",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "cover-letter.md",
+            "pattern": "38%|22%|34",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "cover-letter.md",
+            "pattern": "barcode exception|weekly exception exports|duplicate status tickets",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "cover-letter.md",
+            "pattern": "support|warehouse|Finance|pilot",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "cover-letter.md",
+            "pattern": "returns-desk automation pilot|company hook|expanding",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "cover-letter.md",
+      "kind": "markdown"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "structure",
+        "description": "Layout and hierarchy fit the content; sections are scannable and coherent."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "grounding",
+        "description": "Seeded source content is used faithfully — no invented facts or dropped requirements."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "interactivity",
+        "description": "Controls and states the page claims to offer actually work."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "polish",
+        "description": "Styling is intentional and responsive rather than unstyled or broken."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "role-fit mapping",
+    "evidence-backed prose",
+    "tailored application letter"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/cr/crm-update-batch/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+{
+  "id": "crm-update-batch",
+  "name": "Bulk CRM Update from Notes",
+  "description": "Turn unstructured notes (call logs, meeting recaps, email threads) into a batch of structured CRM updates: per-contact field changes, activity logs, and next-step tasks as a validated import file. Scopes the CRM field schema and extraction rules FIRST (which objects/fields, allowed picklist values, the match-or-create key, required fields), then a developer extracts and maps every note into rows against that schema, then a reviewer validates the batch for schema-conformance and that no update mutates a field without evidence in the source. Scoping the schema before extraction is what makes the import load cleanly and prevents fabricated field values. Use for CRM data entry, bulk contact updates, importing notes into Salesforce/HubSpot, activity logging, and turning call notes into pipeline updates.\n\nSource discipline:\n- Extract only contacts, accounts, emails, statuses, tasks, activities, and source quotes present in the provided notes or locked schema.\n- Preserve the locked import header exactly. Do not split schema fields into extra columns such as first_name, last_name, title, old_value, or new_value; put the attribute name in `field_name` and its value in `field_value`.\n- Treat object names, field names, and picklist values as case-sensitive when the target CRM/import schema gives exact values.\n- For CSV imports, keep empty placeholders as adjacent commas so every row has the same number of cells as the header.\n- When the schema has many optional cells, draft row shapes against the header before extraction and verify the cell count on each output row.\n- When a contact lacks the match key, flag it as UNMATCHED instead of creating a placeholder email, guessed ID, or new account.\n- If the locked schema explicitly needs separate Contact, Account, Activity, or Task rows, split each seeded note into supported rows. Do not add optional object rows just to pad the batch.\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 schema (planner) — lock the CRM fields, picklists, match key, and rules → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Build the batch (developer) — extract and map notes into schema-conformant rows → gated on `updates.csv` (data-file)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "update crm from notes",
+    "bulk crm update",
+    "import notes into salesforce",
+    "log activities to hubspot",
+    "turn call notes into crm records"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the schema",
+      "description": "lock the CRM fields, picklists, match key, and rules",
+      "prompt": "Define the import contract before extracting. (1) Identify the CRM objects to touch (Contact, Account, Opportunity, Activity) and the EXACT fields per object you will update, with their types. (2) Lock allowed values for any picklist/enum field (stage, status, lead source) — extractions must map to these, never free text. (3) Define the match-or-create key (e.g. match Contact by email; if absent, flag for review rather than create blindly). (4) List required fields per row and the output format (CSV with a header, or the CRM's import schema). (5) Lock the evidence rule: every field change must be justified by a quote from the source note. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('every row conforms to the field schema and types', 'picklist fields use only allowed values', 'each changed field cites a source quote', 'unmatched contacts flagged not silently created', 'required fields populated', 'file parses as valid CSV/import format') plus the schema + picklists to {{workPath}}/scope.md via write_task_note AND the produces path.\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": "build"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "build",
+      "name": "Build the batch",
+      "description": "extract and map notes into schema-conformant rows",
+      "prompt": "Produce updates.csv (or the locked import format) by mapping the notes to the schema. (1) Read each note and identify the contact/account it concerns; resolve via the match key, flagging UNMATCHED in a status column rather than fabricating an ID. (2) Extract field updates ONLY where the note gives evidence; normalize every picklist value to an allowed option from scope (drop, don't invent, if no clean mapping). (3) Emit an Activity/log row per note capturing the interaction (type, date, summary) and a next-step task row if the note implies one. (4) Add a source-quote column on each row pointing at the justifying text. (5) Ensure required fields are present and the file parses cleanly (proper header, consistent column count, quoting/escaping). Touch no field the notes don't support. On a loop-back fix only the flagged rows. Write the path and row counts (updates, activities, tasks, unmatched) to notes via write_task_note.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "updates.csv",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "updates.csv",
+            "bytes": 120
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "updates.csv",
+            "sniff": "data-table"
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "build",
+        "maxAttempts": 4
+      },
+      "next": "evaluate"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Evaluate",
+      "description": "Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.",
+      "prompt": "Validate updates.csv against every locked criterion. (1) Parse the CSV — malformed structure, a missing header, or ragged rows (inconsistent column count) is an immediate FAIL. (2) Confirm every field value conforms to its type and that picklist columns contain only allowed values from {{workPath}}/scope.md. (3) Confirm required fields are populated on every row and that unmatched contacts are flagged in the status column, not given fabricated IDs. (4) Trace 4-5 field changes to their source-quote column — any change with no supporting quote is a FAIL for fabrication. (5) Confirm Activity/task rows exist where the notes implied them. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion with the specific offending rows.\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": "updates.csv"
+        }
+      ],
+      "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"
+}