@bendyline/gilde 0.1.38 → 0.1.39

package/data/craftbook-templates/di/diagram-from-text/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+{
+  "id": "diagram-from-text",
+  "name": "Diagram from Text",
+  "description": "Render a clear technical diagram — flowchart, architecture, sequence, ER, or org chart — from a plain-language description, as code-defined (Mermaid/Graphviz/SVG) so it is editable and version-controllable rather than a flat picture. Spec FIRST the diagram type, the exact nodes and edges, and the layout direction, because diagrams fail when relationships are wrong or the graph is an unreadable tangle; then build the diagram so it renders, with every described entity and relationship present and labeled. Covers flowcharts, architecture diagrams, sequence diagrams, ER diagrams, org charts, mind maps, and diagram-as-code.\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 diagram (planner) — lock type, nodes, edges, labels, and layout → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/spec.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Build the diagram (developer) — author the renderable diagram to the spec → gated on `index.html` (html-page)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "spec",
+  "triggers": [
+    "make a diagram from this description",
+    "draw a flowchart",
+    "architecture diagram",
+    "sequence diagram",
+    "turn text into a diagram"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "spec",
+      "name": "Spec the diagram",
+      "description": "lock type, nodes, edges, labels, and layout",
+      "prompt": "1) Parse the description and choose the right diagram TYPE (flowchart, sequence, ER, class, state, org chart, mind map). 2) Enumerate the exact NODES (entities/steps/actors) with their labels and the exact EDGES (relationships/transitions/messages) with their labels and direction — list them explicitly so nothing is dropped or invented. 3) Decide layout direction (top-down vs left-right) and any grouping/subgraphs. 4) Pick the rendering format (Mermaid is the default for editability; Graphviz/SVG if requested). 5) Write an acceptance-criteria checklist: 'every entity in the description is a node', 'every stated relationship is an edge with correct direction', 'labels match the description', 'the diagram renders without syntax errors', 'layout is readable (no needless crossings)'. 6) Record the node/edge list + checklist via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/spec.md.\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 diagram",
+      "description": "author the renderable diagram to the spec",
+      "prompt": "1) Read spec.md's node/edge list. 2) Author the diagram in the chosen format (e.g. a Mermaid graph in an index.html that loads mermaid.js and renders it, so it actually displays). 3) Add EVERY node and EVERY edge from the spec with the correct labels and direction — do not add entities that weren't described and do not omit any. 4) Set the layout direction and use subgraphs/grouping for clarity; choose an arrangement that minimizes edge crossings. 5) Verify the syntax parses (the diagram renders, no error box). 6) On a loop-back, fix only the named gaps (missing edge, wrong arrow direction, syntax error). 7) write_task_note the file path and node/edge counts. The deliverable is index.html that renders the diagram.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "index.html",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "html-complete"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "bytes": 800
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "htmlLint",
+            "file": "index.html"
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkHtmlComplete",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "index.html"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "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": "1) Open index.html and confirm the diagram actually RENDERS with no syntax/error box (PASS/FAIL). 2) Cross-check against spec.md: every described entity appears as a node and every stated relationship appears as an edge with the correct DIRECTION and label (PASS/FAIL — this is the core check). 3) Confirm no invented nodes/edges. 4) Judge readability — is the layout legible or a tangle? 5) Write PASS/FAIL per criterion. Missing/wrong relationships or a non-rendering diagram → loop back to build.\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": "index.html"
+        }
+      ],
+      "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/di/diagram-from-text/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Diagram from Text smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Diagram from Text craftbook using the html-page generic harness.",
+  "tags": [
+    "html-page"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "Can you biuld us a little page for this? The content notes are in source/page-content.md. Save it as index.html — one file, nothing fancy needed on our end.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Diagram from Text Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for diagram-from-text. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/index.html.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Diagram from Text craftbook/template, read the seeded local fixtures, and write index.html without network calls, real credentials, or live services.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/brief.md",
+        "content": "# Diagram from Text 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: diagram-from-text - Diagram from Text.\n"
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "source/page-content.md",
+        "content": "# Boreal Desk Support Board\n\nBuild content around a support operations board. Required labels: Open issues, Status silence, Response time, Refund leakage, Next action. Required metric text: 18 hours to 6 hours and 14.2% to 8.9%.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Jules",
+      "role": "Developer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "index.html is a source-grounded self-contained HTML page/tool.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "index.html",
+        "kind": "html-page",
+        "minBytes": 3000,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "cssMinBytes",
+            "bytes": 650,
+            "file": "index.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsParses",
+            "file": "index.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "Boreal|Support Board|returns",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "18\\s*hours|6\\s*hours|14\\.2%|8\\.9%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "button|input|filter|tab|card|section|nav",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "index.html",
+      "kind": "html"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "structure",
+        "description": "Layout and hierarchy fit the content; sections are scannable and coherent."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "grounding",
+        "description": "Seeded source content is used faithfully — no invented facts or dropped requirements."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "interactivity",
+        "description": "Controls and states the page claims to offer actually work."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "polish",
+        "description": "Styling is intentional and responsive rather than unstyled or broken."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "self-contained UI",
+    "source grounding",
+    "responsive structure"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/di/digest-from-feeds/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+{
+  "id": "digest-from-feeds",
+  "name": "RSS / Feed Digest",
+  "description": "Build a recurring digest from RSS/Atom feeds or news sources: fetch the latest items in the window, dedupe and cluster by topic, then write a scannable digest with one-line takes and source links. Scopes the feed list and digest format FIRST (which feeds, the time window, topic sections, item cap, ranking signal), then a developer fetches and normalizes the feed items into a deduped item list, then a copywriter writes the curated digest from those items only. Scoping sources and the window before fetching is what keeps the digest fresh, deduped, and within length instead of an unranked firehose. Use for RSS digests, news roundups, feed summaries, content curation, and recurring reading digests.\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. Source scope (planner) — lock the feeds, window, sections, and item cap → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/source-scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Gather feed items (developer) — fetch, normalize, dedupe items into an item list → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/gather.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Write the digest (copywriter) — compose the curated digest from gathered items → gated on `digest.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": "source-scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "rss digest",
+    "news roundup",
+    "feed summary",
+    "summarize these feeds",
+    "curated reading digest"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "source-scope",
+      "name": "Source scope",
+      "description": "lock the feeds, window, sections, and item cap",
+      "prompt": "Define the digest contract before fetching. (1) Lock the feed/source list (the RSS/Atom URLs or named sources). (2) Set the time window (only items published within it) and the topic sections the digest groups into. (3) Set a per-section item cap and an overall cap, plus a ranking signal for which items make the cut (recency, source weight, or keyword relevance to a stated interest). (4) Define the per-item format: a tight one-line take + a source link + publish date. (5) Define the dedupe rule (same story across feeds collapses to one, by URL or title similarity). Write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('only items within the window', 'duplicates across feeds collapsed', 'each item has a working source link + date', 'per-section and overall caps respected', 'every item traces to a fetched feed item — nothing invented', 'scannable in under two minutes') plus the source list + format to {{workPath}}/source-scope.md via write_task_note AND the produces path.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/source-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}}/source-scope.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/source-scope.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/source-scope.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "source-scope",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "gather"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "gather",
+      "name": "Gather feed items",
+      "description": "fetch, normalize, dedupe items into an item list",
+      "prompt": "Fetch and normalize the feeds into {{workPath}}/gather.md. (1) Retrieve each feed (via the fetch/web tool); parse out item title, link, publish date, and a short excerpt. (2) Drop items outside the locked window. (3) Apply the dedupe rule — collapse the same story appearing in multiple feeds to a single entry, keeping the best source link. (4) Tag each surviving item with its target section and a ranking score per the locked signal. (5) Sort within each section by the ranking signal and keep within the caps; record the dropped count. Capture this as a structured, attributed list — title, link, date, section, score — NOT prose, and verify every link is a real URL from the feed. If a feed is unreachable, note it explicitly. Write the item list via write_task_note and end with per-section counts.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/gather.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": "developer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/gather.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/gather.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/gather.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "gather",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write the digest",
+      "description": "compose the curated digest from gathered items",
+      "prompt": "Write digest.md from {{workPath}}/gather.md only. (1) Open with a one-line 'what mattered' summary of the period. (2) One section per topic in the locked order; under each, the capped items as a one-line take + linked title + date. Each take is a genuine, specific summary of the item — not a restated headline, not invented detail. (3) Respect the per-section and overall caps; if a section has no in-window items, omit it. (4) Keep the whole thing skimmable in under two minutes. Use only items present in the gather file with their real links — invent nothing. On a loop-back fix only the flagged sections. Write the path and item count to notes via write_task_note.\n\nBefore working, open the artifact input `{{workPath}}/gather.md` with `read_artifact`; do not look for it in the workspace.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "{{workPath}}/gather.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        }
+      ],
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "digest.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "digest.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "digest.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "write",
+        "maxAttempts": 4
+      },
+      "next": "evaluate"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Evaluate",
+      "description": "Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.",
+      "prompt": "QA digest.md against the locked criteria. (1) Confirm every item appears in {{workPath}}/gather.md with a real source link and an in-window date; FAIL on any invented item or out-of-window entry. (2) Confirm duplicates across feeds were collapsed (no two entries for the same story). (3) Confirm per-section and overall caps are respected. (4) Read 3 one-line takes — are they real summaries of the linked item, not just the headline echoed, and accurate? (5) Confirm it is genuinely scannable. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion with specifics.\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": "digest.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/di/digest-from-feeds/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "RSS / Feed Digest smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the RSS / Feed Digest craftbook using the external generic harness.",
+  "tags": [
+    "external"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "Theres a fake ops service wired up for this so nothing real gets touched — the endpoints are in mocks/services.md, and the ready-made mock-probe script talks to them for you. Can you run the automation against it and write up how it went in automation.md?",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "RSS / Feed Digest Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for digest-from-feeds. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/automation.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the RSS / Feed Digest craftbook/template, read the seeded local fixtures, and write automation.md without network calls, real credentials, or live services.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/brief.md",
+        "content": "# RSS / Feed Digest 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: digest-from-feeds - RSS / Feed Digest.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Jules",
+      "role": "Developer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [
+    {
+      "kind": "http",
+      "id": "ops",
+      "description": "Fake operations service for this eval. GET /api/bookings/open lists the open work items; POST /api/bookings/dry-run records a simulated submission and returns DRY_RUN_OK.",
+      "credential": {
+        "name": "mock.ops"
+      },
+      "routes": [
+        {
+          "method": "GET",
+          "path": "/api/bookings/open",
+          "body": {
+            "items": [
+              "BKG-1001",
+              "BKG-1002",
+              "BKG-1003"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        {
+          "method": "POST",
+          "path": "/api/bookings/dry-run",
+          "status": 201,
+          "body": {
+            "status": "DRY_RUN_OK",
+            "recorded": 3
+          }
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "kind": "webhook",
+      "id": "notify",
+      "description": "Notification receiver. POST a JSON completion notice here when the run finishes.",
+      "path": "/hooks/notify"
+    },
+    {
+      "kind": "cli",
+      "id": "probe",
+      "description": "Provenance-trusted project script `mock-probe` that exercises the fake ops service through http.authed and returns the raw responses.",
+      "shim": {
+        "path": "scripts/mock-probe.ts",
+        "content": "import { defineScript, gezel } from '@bendyline/gezel-sdk';\n\nexport const meta = defineScript({\n  name: 'mock-probe',\n  description:\n    'Probe the live fake ops service for this eval: lists the open work items and records a dry-run submission. Outputs the raw JSON responses as evidence for the write-up.',\n  inputs: {},\n  outputs: {\n    open: { type: 'string', description: 'Raw JSON body from the open-items listing.' },\n    dryRun: { type: 'string', description: 'Raw JSON body from the dry-run submission.' },\n  },\n  requires: ['workspace.read', 'network', 'credential:mock.ops'],\n});\n\nconst services = JSON.parse(await gezel.fs.read('mocks/services.json'));\nconst base = (id) => {\n  const service = services.find((entry) => entry.id === id);\n  if (!service) throw new Error(`mock service \"${id}\" is not listed in mocks/services.json`);\n  return service.baseUrl;\n};\n\nconst open = await gezel.http.authed(`${base('ops')}/api/bookings/open`, {\n  credential: 'mock.ops',\n});\nif (!open.ok) throw new Error(`open-items listing failed: ${open.status} ${open.body}`);\n\nconst dryRun = await gezel.http.authed(`${base('ops')}/api/bookings/dry-run`, {\n  credential: 'mock.ops',\n  method: 'POST',\n  body: JSON.stringify({ items: JSON.parse(open.body).items, mode: 'dry-run' }),\n});\nif (!dryRun.ok) throw new Error(`dry-run submission failed: ${dryRun.status} ${dryRun.body}`);\n\ngezel.output({ open: open.body, dryRun: dryRun.body });\n"
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "automation.md is grounded in live fake-service responses: the open items were actually listed and a dry-run actually recorded (request-log assertions), with safety guards and signals described.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "automation.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 900,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "automation.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "automation.md",
+            "pattern": "DRY_RUN_OK|dry-run|dry run",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "automation.md",
+            "pattern": "fake-ci|fake-github|/api/bookings",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "automation.md",
+            "pattern": "no real|credentials|safety|guard",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "automation.md",
+            "pattern": "success|failure|retry|abort",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "mocks": [
+      {
+        "service": "ops",
+        "minRequests": 2,
+        "requiredPaths": [
+          "^/api/bookings/open$",
+          "^/api/bookings/dry-run$"
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "automation.md",
+      "kind": "markdown"
+    },
+    "axes": [
+      {
+        "name": "safety",
+        "description": "Dry-run posture is explicit: no real credentials, clear stop-before-side-effect boundary."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "mapping",
+        "description": "Fake endpoints/commands are mapped completely to the workflow steps."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "signals",
+        "description": "Success, failure, retry, and abort conditions are all defined."
+      },
+      {
+        "name": "containment",
+        "description": "The plan cannot accidentally reach a real service from a mock context."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "qualityFocus": [
+    "dry-run safety",
+    "fake tool mapping",
+    "side-effect containment"
+  ],
+  "extensions": {
+    "legacySimulators": [
+      {
+        "id": "digest-from-feeds-fake-service-fixture",
+        "kind": "data-source",
+        "status": "implemented",
+        "description": "Seeded local fake service contract replacing live CLIs, HTTP APIs, credentials, and side effects."
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}