@bendyline/gilde 0.1.38 → 0.1.39

package/data/craftbook-templates/kn/knowledge-base-article/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+{
+  "id": "knowledge-base-article",
+  "name": "Knowledge Base Article",
+  "description": "Write a support knowledge-base article that lets a user solve their problem without contacting support: it first scopes the exact user problem, the search terms they would use, prerequisites, and the success outcome, then writes a task-oriented article with a clear title, a short overview, numbered steps with expected results, screenshots/placeholders where needed, and a troubleshooting section, then a review pass verifies accuracy and self-service completeness. Covers help center article, support documentation, how-to article, KB article, self-service docs, and product help. Scoping the precise problem and search terms before writing is the point: a small model that pins the one job-to-be-done writes a findable, followable article instead of a vague overview that leaves the user still stuck.\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. Article scope (planner) — lock the problem, search terms, prerequisites, and success outcome → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Write the article (copywriter) — write the task-oriented, self-service article → gated on `kb-article.md` (markdown-doc)\n3. Accuracy & completeness review (reviewer) — verify the article is accurate and lets a user self-serve → gated on `kb-article.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 knowledge base article",
+    "help center article",
+    "support how-to",
+    "kb article",
+    "self-service docs"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Article scope",
+      "description": "lock the problem, search terms, prerequisites, and success outcome",
+      "prompt": "1) State the exact user PROBLEM the article solves, phrased as the user experiences it ('I can't log in after changing my email'). 2) List the search terms/keywords a stuck user would type, so the title and intro can match them. 3) List prerequisites (account type, permissions, plan, things they need before starting). 4) Define the SUCCESS outcome — how the user knows it worked. 5) Identify where a screenshot or example would prevent confusion. 6) Note common failure points for the troubleshooting section. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist (e.g. 'title matches likely search terms'; 'prerequisites stated up front'; 'numbered steps with one action each and expected results'; 'a troubleshooting section covers common failures'; 'ends with how to confirm success'; 'a user could self-serve without contacting support'). Use write_task_note for the scope + checklist, and write the same to the produces path. No article 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": "write"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write the article",
+      "description": "write the task-oriented, self-service article",
+      "prompt": "Write the KB article from the scope. 1) Title: action- and search-oriented, matching the user's likely query. 2) Short overview (1-2 sentences): what this article helps them do and who it is for. 3) Prerequisites section. 4) Numbered step-by-step instructions: one action per step, in imperative voice, with the expected result after key steps and screenshot placeholders ('![screenshot: settings page](...)') where the scope flagged them. 5) A 'How to confirm it worked' line tied to the success outcome. 6) A 'Troubleshooting' section addressing the common failure points as a short Q&A. 7) Optional 'Related articles' links. Use scannable H2/H3 headings and a plain, reassuring support voice. Output GitHub-flavored markdown. Save to the produces path and note which checklist items pass.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "kb-article.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "kb-article.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "kb-article.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "write",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "review"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "review",
+      "name": "Accuracy & completeness review",
+      "description": "verify the article is accurate and lets a user self-serve",
+      "prompt": "Review and edit the article in place against the checklist. 1) Walk the steps as if you were the stuck user: are they complete, in order, and each a single clear action? Fix gaps and ambiguity. 2) Verify technical accuracy of every instruction and UI reference; flag anything you cannot confirm. 3) Confirm prerequisites are up front and the success check is present. 4) Confirm the troubleshooting section covers the likely failures. 5) Confirm the title matches search intent. The bar: could a real user solve this without contacting support? If not, fix what blocks them. Save the polished article to the produces path and note any criteria still unmet.",
+      "suggestedRole": "reviewer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "kb-article.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "kb-article.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "kb-article.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": "Read kb-article.md against the scope and walk it as a stuck user. Check EACH criterion and write PASS/FAIL: (a) title matches the likely search terms; (b) prerequisites stated up front; (c) numbered steps, one action each, with expected results; (d) a troubleshooting section covers common failures; (e) a clear 'how to confirm success' step; (f) a real user could self-serve end to end without contacting support. An article that is a vague overview or leaves a step missing FAILS — loop back to write.\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": "kb-article.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/kn/knowledge-base-article/versions/1.0.2/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Knowledge Base Article smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Knowledge Base Article craftbook using the corpus generic harness.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "We need a knowledge base article 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": "Knowledge Base Article Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for knowledge-base-article. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/report.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Knowledge Base Article 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": "# Knowledge Base Article 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: knowledge-base-article - Knowledge Base Article.\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/kp/kpi-scorecard/versions/1.0.2/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+{
+  "id": "kpi-scorecard",
+  "name": "KPI Scorecard Page",
+  "description": "Build a single-page KPI scorecard that rolls a dataset up into the handful of numbers a team tracks, each shown with its current value, target, and period-over-period change. Defines the KPIs and their exact formulas and targets FIRST (so a number is never ambiguous), then computes the rollups, then builds a clean self-contained HTML scorecard with KPI tiles, deltas, and a tiny trend sparkline each. Use this for a KPI dashboard, a metrics scorecard, an executive summary page, a North Star metrics view, or rolling raw data into headline numbers.\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 KPIs (planner) — lock each KPI's formula, target, and comparison period → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/kpi-scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Compute the rollups (data-analyst) — compute each KPI's value, delta, and trend series → gated on `data/kpis.json` (json)\n3. Build the scorecard (developer) — render a self-contained KPI scorecard page → 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": "kpi-scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "build a kpi scorecard",
+    "metrics dashboard page",
+    "executive metrics summary",
+    "north star metrics",
+    "roll data into kpis"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "kpi-scope",
+      "name": "Scope the KPIs",
+      "description": "lock each KPI's formula, target, and comparison period",
+      "prompt": "Define each KPI precisely before computing anything. Step 1: list the 4-8 KPIs the scorecard shows, ordered by importance. Step 2: for each, write the exact formula (numerator / denominator), the unit and format (count, %, currency), and the time window. Step 3: define the comparison — period-over-period (this month vs last) or vs a target — and the target value where one exists. Step 4: define 'good' direction (up is good vs down is good) so deltas can be colored. Step 5: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('every KPI has a precise formula and unit', 'each tile shows current value + delta vs comparison', 'targets shown where defined', 'good/bad direction is correct', 'a small trend is shown per KPI'). Call write_task_note and write the KPI definitions + targets + checklist to {{workPath}}/kpi-scope.md.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/kpi-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}}/kpi-scope.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/kpi-scope.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/kpi-scope.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "kpi-scope",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "compute"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "compute",
+      "name": "Compute the rollups",
+      "description": "compute each KPI's value, delta, and trend series",
+      "prompt": "Compute every scoped KPI from the data. Step 1: for each KPI apply its exact formula over the current window and record the value. Step 2: compute the same for the comparison window and derive the absolute and % delta and whether it's an improvement given the good-direction. Step 3: build a short trend series (e.g. last 6-12 periods) per KPI for the sparkline. Step 4: attach the target and the gap to target where defined. Step 5: emit data/kpis.json — per KPI { name, value, unit, delta, delta_pct, improved, target, trend[] }. Double-check a denominator isn't zero and a % isn't mis-scaled. Call write_task_note with the headline KPI values and deltas.",
+      "suggestedRole": "data-analyst",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "data/kpis.json",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "json-valid"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "data/kpis.json",
+            "bytes": 2
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkJsonValid",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "data/kpis.json"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "compute",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "build"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "build",
+      "name": "Build the scorecard",
+      "description": "render a self-contained KPI scorecard page",
+      "prompt": "Build a single self-contained index.html scorecard from data/kpis.json. Step 1: render one KPI tile per metric in priority order, each showing the formatted current value, the metric name, and the delta vs comparison with an up/down arrow colored by improvement (green good, red bad per the good-direction). Step 2: show the target and gap where defined. Step 3: draw a tiny inline sparkline (canvas/SVG) of the trend series in each tile — no external chart CDN that could fail offline. Step 4: lay the tiles out in a responsive grid, headline KPIs largest. Step 5: ensure values are real (from the JSON), formatting is correct, and there are no console errors. On a loop-back, fix only the named gaps. Call write_task_note with the path and KPI count.",
+      "suggestedRole": "developer",
+      "consumes": [
+        {
+          "file": "data/kpis.json"
+        }
+      ],
+      "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": "Open index.html (render it if possible, else trace the source) and check against {{workPath}}/kpi-scope.md and data/kpis.json. Verify: every scoped KPI appears as a tile with its formatted current value; each tile shows a delta vs the comparison with the correct good/bad color direction; targets and gaps are shown where defined; a trend sparkline renders per KPI from real data; and there are no console errors. Re-derive one KPI's value and delta from the data. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion; any FAIL loops 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/kp/kpi-scorecard/versions/1.0.2/test.json

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