@bendyline/gilde 0.1.38 → 0.1.39

package/data/craftbook-templates/du/due-diligence-brief/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+{
+  "id": "due-diligence-brief",
+  "name": "Due-Diligence Brief",
+  "description": "Produce a structured due-diligence brief on an entity (company, vendor, investment, partner): a planner locks the diligence dimensions and red-flag criteria, a researcher gathers verifiable facts and risk signals per dimension with sources, and a copywriter writes a decision-oriented brief with findings, risks, and an overall read. The ordering matters because diligence without locked dimensions misses a category (e.g. legal, financial, reputational) and a brief without a red-flag rubric buries the risks; fixing the dimensions and what counts as a flag first makes the brief decision-ready and defensible. Use this for vendor/partner due diligence, investment diligence, background briefs on a company or person, risk assessments, and 'should we work with / invest in X' questions.\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 diligence (planner) — lock diligence dimensions + red-flag criteria → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Gather facts & signals (researcher) — verifiable facts + risk signals per dimension, sourced → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/findings.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Write the brief (copywriter) — decision-oriented brief with findings, risks, and a read → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/brief.md` (markdown-report)\n\nThe gates never advance with an unmet criterion, and loop back to the\nowning phase to fix named gaps.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "due diligence brief",
+    "diligence on this company",
+    "background check on a vendor",
+    "should we partner with",
+    "risk assessment of an entity"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the diligence",
+      "description": "lock diligence dimensions + red-flag criteria",
+      "prompt": "1. Name the entity and the decision the brief informs (invest, partner, buy, hire) in one sentence. 2. Lock the diligence dimensions to cover (e.g. business model & traction, financials/funding, leadership, legal/regulatory, reputation/litigation, security/compliance as relevant) and what each must establish. 3. Define the red-flag rubric: what observations count as a red, amber, or green signal in each dimension. 4. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist (e.g. 'every dimension has a findings section', 'each material fact cites a source', 'risks are rated red/amber/green per the rubric', 'an overall recommendation/read is stated', 'unknowns and information gaps are listed'). 5. Record decisions. Call write_task_note with the dimensions, red-flag rubric, and checklist; write the same 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": "research"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "research",
+      "name": "Gather facts & signals",
+      "description": "verifiable facts + risk signals per dimension, sourced",
+      "prompt": "1. For each locked dimension, gather verifiable facts into {{workPath}}/findings.md: the fact, its source [n] (official filing, registry, reputable reporting), and the date. 2. Apply the red-flag rubric as you go: tag each notable signal red/amber/green with the reason. 3. Prefer primary records (registrations, filings, official statements) over rumor; corroborate any serious negative with a second independent source before flagging it red. 4. Explicitly list what you could NOT find — open questions and information gaps are a diligence output, not a failure. 5. Do not assert unverified rumors as fact; mark them UNVERIFIED. Good looks like a per-dimension findings file with rated signals. Do not write the brief yet.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/findings.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": "researcher",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/findings.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/findings.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/findings.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "research",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write the brief",
+      "description": "decision-oriented brief with findings, risks, and a read",
+      "prompt": "1. Write {{workPath}}/brief.md: a 1-paragraph bottom-line read up top (overall recommendation + the single biggest risk), then a section per diligence dimension with its findings and rated signals, then a consolidated 'Risks (red/amber/green)' section, then 'Open questions & information gaps'. 2. Every material fact carries its citation [n] and date; never state a serious negative without a corroborating source. 3. Keep it decision-oriented and scannable — a busy reader should get the verdict and risks in 60 seconds. 4. Add a References list from {{workPath}}/findings.md so every [n] resolves. 5. On a loop-back, fix only the named gaps. 6. Call write_task_note with the brief path and which criteria now pass.\n\nBefore working, open the artifact input `{{workPath}}/findings.md` with `read_artifact`; do not look for it in the workspace.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/brief.md` lands in the project's artifacts drawer — write it with `write_artifact` and read it back with `read_artifact`; the shipped workspace stays untouched.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "{{workPath}}/findings.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        }
+      ],
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/brief.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/brief.md",
+            "bytes": 1500,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/brief.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "at least one markdown heading",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "write",
+        "maxAttempts": 4
+      },
+      "next": "evaluate"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Evaluate",
+      "description": "Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.",
+      "prompt": "Open {{workPath}}/brief.md and check EACH criterion PASS/FAIL: (1) every locked dimension has a findings section; (2) each material fact cites a dated source (spot-check 3 against {{workPath}}/findings.md); (3) risks are rated red/amber/green per the rubric and serious negatives are corroborated by a second source; (4) an explicit bottom-line read/recommendation is stated up top; (5) an open-questions/information-gaps section lists what could not be confirmed; (6) no UNVERIFIED rumor is presented as fact. A brief that buries the risks, omits a dimension, or states an uncorroborated negative as fact FAILS.\n\nThe deliverable lives in the project's artifacts drawer — open `{{workPath}}/brief.md` with `read_artifact`, not `read_file`.\n\nThen route — this is the whole point of the loop:\n\n- **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"finish\" })`.\n- **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"write\" })` to loop back. The builder fixes exactly those gaps.\n\nNever route to `finish` while any criterion is unmet. The build phase's completion gate already blocked a grossly-incomplete deliverable; your job is the judgment an automated check cannot make (does it actually work, read well, look right). After ~3 unproductive loops, stop and report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS so the user can step in.",
+      "suggestedRole": "reviewer",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "{{workPath}}/brief.md",
+          "artifact": true
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "finish",
+      "name": "Finish",
+      "description": "All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE.",
+      "prompt": "Every acceptance criterion passed. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes via `write_task_note`: what was built, the deliverable path(s), and a one-line confirmation that each criterion is met. Then report DONE.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "terminal": true
+    }
+  ],
+  "version": "1.0.2",
+  "releasedAt": "2026-08-21T00:00:00Z",
+  "paramSchema": {
+    "type": "object",
+    "properties": {
+      "workPath": {
+        "type": "string",
+        "title": "Working folder",
+        "description": "Per-task working folder in the artifacts drawer. Defaults to this task's own folder so runs never collide; override with a stable name when you deliberately want runs to share files.",
+        "default": "{{task.dir}}"
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "minGezelVersion": "1.26233"
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/du/due-diligence-brief/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Due-Diligence Brief smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Due-Diligence Brief craftbook using the corpus generic harness.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "We need a due-diligence brief for the returns-desk work. The backgound info is in source/brief.md — have a look and write it up in report.md.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Due-Diligence Brief Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for due-diligence-brief. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/report.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Due-Diligence Brief craftbook/template, read the seeded local fixtures, and write report.md without network calls, real credentials, or live services.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/brief.md",
+        "content": "# Due-Diligence Brief 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: due-diligence-brief - Due-Diligence Brief.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Jules",
+      "role": "Writer"
+    },
+    "craftbookParams": {
+      "workPath": "tasks/eval"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "report.md is a source-grounded markdown artifact with required facts and actions.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "report.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 1000,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "report.md",
+            "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "report.md",
+            "pattern": "source/brief\\.md|Brief",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "cite or name the seeded source"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "report.md",
+            "pattern": "18\\b[\\s\\S]{0,30}\\bSKUs",
+            "flags": "i",
+            "label": "include the 18-SKU pilot scope"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "report.md",
+            "pattern": "18\\s*hours|6\\s*hours",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "report.md",
+            "pattern": "14\\.2%|8\\.9%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "report.md",
+            "pattern": "status silence|photo submission",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "report.md",
+            "pattern": "automated status emails|barcode|Finance",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "report.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": [
+    "source-grounded prose",
+    "section structure",
+    "next-action clarity"
+  ]
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/eb/ebook-compile/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+{
+  "id": "ebook-compile",
+  "name": "Ebook Compile",
+  "description": "Compile a collection of notes, articles, or chapter drafts into a coherent, readable ebook — with a title page, table of contents, consistently formatted chapters, and front/back matter — output as a single navigable HTML book. Outlines the chapter structure and through-line FIRST (so disparate notes become a real book, not a pile), writes/edits each chapter to a consistent voice and adds connective tissue, then builds the compiled HTML with a linked TOC and chapter navigation. Use for turning a blog backlog, course notes, or drafts into a downloadable ebook.\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. Outline the book (planner) — chapter order, through-line, and front/back matter → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/outline.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Write and edit chapters (copywriter) — edit each chapter to one voice + add connective transitions → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/write.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Build the ebook (developer) — compile index.html: title page, linked TOC, chapter nav → 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": "outline",
+  "triggers": [
+    "compile an ebook",
+    "make an ebook",
+    "turn my notes into a book",
+    "ebook from articles",
+    "build a book",
+    "create an ebook"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "outline",
+      "name": "Outline the book",
+      "description": "chapter order, through-line, and front/back matter",
+      "prompt": "Turn the raw material into a book structure. Step 1: survey the source {{workPath}}/articles and identify the central through-line or argument that will make them cohere. Step 2: group and order the material into chapters/parts that build logically; cut or merge redundant pieces. Step 3: plan the front matter (title page, optional preface/intro, table of contents) and back matter (conclusion, about, resources). Step 4: for each chapter note its title, the source pieces it draws from, and the transition that links it to the next. Step 5: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('has a title page + linked table of contents', 'chapters are ordered to a clear through-line', 'each chapter opens and closes cleanly with transitions', 'consistent heading levels throughout', 'front and back matter present'). Write the chapter map + checklist via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/outline.md. No chapter prose or HTML yet.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/outline.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}}/outline.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/outline.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/outline.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "outline",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write and edit chapters",
+      "description": "edit each chapter to one voice + add connective transitions",
+      "prompt": "Write/edit the chapters so the book reads as one work. Step 1: for each chapter in order, shape the source material into clean prose with a consistent voice, tense, and terminology (disparate notes often clash — unify them). Step 2: give each chapter a clear opening that orients the reader and a close that lands the point and transitions to the next chapter. Step 3: write the preface/intro that sets up the through-line and the conclusion that ties it together. Step 4: standardize formatting decisions — heading levels, how lists/quotes/code appear — so they are uniform across chapters. Step 5: keep the reader's journey in mind: no chapter should feel like an orphaned blog post. Write the per-chapter edited text + front/back matter via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/write.md.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/write.md` lands in the project's artifacts drawer — write it with `write_artifact` and read it back with `read_artifact`; the shipped workspace stays untouched.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/write.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/write.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/write.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "write",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "build"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "build",
+      "name": "Build the ebook",
+      "description": "compile index.html: title page, linked TOC, chapter nav",
+      "prompt": "Compile the book as a single self-contained index.html (inline CSS, no external assets). Step 1: build a title page (title, subtitle, author) as the opening screen. Step 2: build a Table of Contents with in-page anchor links to every chapter. Step 3: render each chapter in order with a stable id, consistent heading hierarchy, comfortable reading width and line-height, and the unified formatting from the edit phase. Step 4: add chapter navigation — previous/next links and a back-to-TOC link at each chapter boundary — and use page-break-before per chapter so it also prints/exports as a clean book. Step 5: include the front matter (preface) and back matter (conclusion, about/resources). Drop in the edited prose verbatim; do not re-edit the voice here. On a loop-back, fix ONLY the named gaps. Write the path + chapter count via write_task_note.",
+      "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": "QA the ebook against the locked criteria. Step 1: open/render index.html and click through the TOC links and chapter navigation. Step 2: check EACH acceptance criterion: title page present, a linked table of contents whose links all resolve to the right chapters, chapters ordered to the through-line, each chapter opens/closes with transitions, heading levels and formatting are consistent across chapters, and front + back matter are present. Step 3: read two non-adjacent chapters and confirm the voice is unified (not obviously stitched from clashing sources). Step 4: confirm chapter page-breaks work for print/export. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion with the offending chapter on any FAIL.\n\nThen route — this is the whole point of the loop:\n\n- **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"finish\" })`.\n- **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"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/eb/ebook-compile/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Ebook Compile smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Ebook Compile 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": "Ebook Compile Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for ebook-compile. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/index.html.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Ebook Compile 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": "# Ebook Compile 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: ebook-compile - Ebook Compile.\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"
+  ]
+}