@bendyline/gilde 0.1.51 → 0.1.52

package/data/craftbook-templates/re/resume-cv/versions/1.0.3/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
+{
+  "id": "resume-cv",
+  "name": "Résumé / CV",
+  "description": "Build a clean, ATS-friendly résumé or CV from a person's background, tailored to a target role. Scopes the target role and the highlight reel of achievements FIRST (so the résumé is targeted, not a life history), then designs a single-column, parser-safe layout, then writes impact-led bullets with metrics that fit one to two pages. Use for job applications, LinkedIn-to-résumé conversions, and role-targeted CV rewrites.\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 résumé (planner) — target role, must-hit keywords, and the achievement highlight reel → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Design the layout (designer) — single-column ATS-safe template with clean hierarchy → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/design.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Write the résumé (copywriter) — write impact bullets into index.html, tailored and within the cap → 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": "scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "write my resume",
+    "build a cv",
+    "make a resume",
+    "tailor my resume to a job",
+    "curriculum vitae",
+    "ats friendly resume"
+  ],
+  "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}}"
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "scope",
+      "name": "Scope the résumé",
+      "description": "target role, must-hit keywords, and the achievement highlight reel",
+      "prompt": "Target before drafting. Step 1: identify the target role/title and, if a job description is provided, extract the must-hit skills and keywords. Step 2: from the person's background, select the experiences that matter for THIS role and set aside the rest — a résumé is a targeted highlight reel, not a complete history. Step 3: choose the section set and order (summary, experience, skills, education, plus optional projects/certs) and decide the length cap (1 page for <10 yrs experience, 2 max). Step 4: for each kept role, note the 2-4 strongest achievements and where a metric exists (numbers, %, scale). Step 5: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('targeted to the stated role', 'reverse-chronological experience', 'every role has impact bullets, most with a metric', 'must-hit keywords appear naturally', 'fits within the page cap', 'no objective-statement filler'). Write the scope + highlight reel + checklist via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/scope.md. No layout or final bullets 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": "design",
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "artifact",
+        "additionalOutputMedia": [
+          "task-note"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "design",
+      "name": "Design the layout",
+      "description": "single-column ATS-safe template with clean hierarchy",
+      "prompt": "Design a layout that BOTH a recruiter and an ATS parser can read. Step 1: choose a single-column layout (multi-column and tables confuse parsers) with a clear header (name, title, contact line) and standard section headings (Experience, Skills, Education) in plain text. Step 2: pick a conservative type scale and a restrained palette (mostly ink-on-white, at most one subtle accent) with strong contrast; no graphics, no icons that carry meaning, web-safe fonts only. Step 3: define the entry format for experience (Company | Title | Dates on one line, bullets beneath) and a compact skills format. Step 4: set print rules (@page, Letter/A4) and a height constraint matching the page cap. Step 5: write a visual-criteria checklist ('single column, no tables for layout', 'standard parser-friendly section headings', 'consistent date alignment', 'fits the page cap in print'). Write the layout spec + checklist via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/design.md. No copy yet.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/design.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": "designer",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "{{workPath}}/design.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/design.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/design.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "design",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "write",
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "artifact",
+        "additionalOutputMedia": [
+          "task-note"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write the résumé",
+      "description": "write impact bullets into index.html, tailored and within the cap",
+      "prompt": "Write the résumé and assemble it into the layout as a single self-contained index.html (inline CSS with print rules). Step 1: write a 1-2 line professional summary tailored to the target role, weaving in must-hit keywords naturally. Step 2: write experience entries in reverse-chronological order with impact-led bullets — each starts with a strong verb and, wherever the highlight reel supplied one, includes a metric (scale, %, $, time saved). Step 3: write a scannable skills section using the role's keywords, and a compact education section. Step 4: cut ruthlessly to fit the page cap; remove dated or irrelevant roles before adding pages. Step 5: ensure no objective-statement filler and no first-person pronouns in bullets. On a loop-back, fix ONLY the named gaps. Write the path + a note confirming page count and that keywords are covered via write_task_note.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "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": "write",
+        "maxAttempts": 4
+      },
+      "next": "evaluate",
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "artifacts",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "workspace",
+        "additionalOutputMedia": [
+          "task-note"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "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 résumé. Step 1: open/render index.html and, if print-preview is available, confirm it is within the page cap. Step 2: check EACH acceptance criterion: targeted to the stated role, single-column parser-safe layout with standard section headings, reverse-chronological experience, every role has impact bullets and most carry a metric, must-hit keywords appear naturally, no objective-statement filler, dates aligned consistently. Step 3: read it as a recruiter for the target role and confirm the fit is obvious in the top third. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion; if it exceeds the page cap, FAIL and loop back to trim.\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": "index.html"
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "write",
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "artifacts",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "task-note"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "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,
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "artifacts",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "task-note"
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "version": "1.0.3",
+  "releasedAt": "2026-09-01T20:00:00Z",
+  "minGezelVersion": "1.26233"
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/re/resume-cv/versions/1.0.3/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Résumé / CV smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Résumé / CV 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": "Résumé / CV Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for resume-cv. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/index.html.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Résumé / CV 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": "# Résumé / CV 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: resume-cv - Résumé / CV.\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"
+    }
+  },
+  "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/re/reviewer-loop/versions/1.0.1/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+{
+  "id": "reviewer-loop",
+  "name": "Reviewer Loop",
+  "description": "A four-step recipe for any \"draft, critique, revise, publish\" pattern.\n\nThe workflow exists for cases where a first draft is not enough: briefs,\nannouncements, reports, specs, and other artifacts that need an explicit\nreview pass before they are considered done.\n\nPhases:\n\n1. Draft (writer) — identify the deliverable path and acceptance criteria,\n   then write the first complete file.\n2. Critique (reviewer) — review the file against the criteria and route\n   either to revision or publish.\n3. Revise (writer) — address the named critique with a real file edit, then\n   loop back to critique.\n4. Publish (writer) — stamp the final summary only after reviewer approval.\n\nThe evaluate step is the gate. It defaults back to revision and must never\nroute to publish while a criterion is unmet. The safe failure mode is another\ntargeted revision, not an early DONE.\n",
+  "entryStepId": "draft",
+  "triggers": [
+    "draft critique revise",
+    "reviewer loop",
+    "critique and revise",
+    "polish this draft"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "draft",
+      "name": "Draft",
+      "description": "Produce the first cut of the requested artifact and make the review target explicit.",
+      "prompt": "Create the first complete draft of the requested artifact. Before writing, identify the deliverable path, audience, and 4-6 acceptance criteria in task notes. Then write the draft with the appropriate file-writing tool. Do not ask for critique until a real draft exists. When the draft is written, add a short task note naming the path and the criteria it is intended to satisfy, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"draft\", next: \"evaluate\" })`.",
+      "suggestedRole": "writer",
+      "next": "evaluate",
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "artifacts",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "none"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Critique",
+      "description": "Review the draft against the criteria and route either to revision or publish.",
+      "prompt": "Act as the reviewer. Read the deliverable and the acceptance criteria from task notes. Write a concrete critique to task notes with PASS/FAIL for each criterion and no vague style advice. If every criterion passes, call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"publish\" })`; publish is the finish route. If any criterion fails, write the specific gaps and call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"evaluate\", next: \"revise\" })`. Never route to publish or finish while a criterion is unmet.",
+      "suggestedRole": "reviewer",
+      "next": "revise",
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "artifacts",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "task-note"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "revise",
+      "name": "Revise",
+      "description": "Address the named critique without redesigning unrelated parts.",
+      "prompt": "Revise the deliverable to address exactly the critique in task notes. Preserve criteria that already passed. Make a real file edit; a prose promise is not enough. After editing, write a short task note listing which critique items were fixed and call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: \"revise\", next: \"evaluate\" })` so the reviewer can check the revision.",
+      "suggestedRole": "writer",
+      "next": "evaluate",
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "artifacts",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "task-note"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "publish",
+      "name": "Publish",
+      "description": "Stamp the final summary after reviewer approval.",
+      "prompt": "The reviewer approved the artifact. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes naming the final deliverable path and the acceptance criteria that passed. Then report DONE.",
+      "suggestedRole": "writer",
+      "terminal": true,
+      "toolPolicy": {
+        "disallowBuiltinToolsets": [
+          "ai-apps",
+          "archives",
+          "artifacts",
+          "audio",
+          "browser-automation",
+          "code-execution",
+          "craftbooks",
+          "data-tables",
+          "entity-intel",
+          "git",
+          "image-intel",
+          "images",
+          "role-delegation",
+          "role-delegation-escalation",
+          "security-intel",
+          "team-management",
+          "videos",
+          "web",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "task-note"
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "version": "1.0.1",
+  "releasedAt": "2026-09-01T20:00:00Z"
+}

package/data/craftbook-templates/re/reviewer-loop/versions/1.0.1/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Draft, critique, revise, publish loop",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the reviewer-loop craftbook makes a local model create a real first draft, critique it against criteria, revise concrete gaps, and publish only after approval.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Reviewer Loop Eval` project, create `brief.md`: a concise customer-support announcement about the seeded returns-desk pilot. It must be suitable for support leads, include Background, What changed, Customer impact, Risks, and Next actions sections, and use the source facts in `source/pilot-notes.md`. Draft first, critique against explicit acceptance criteria, revise any gaps, then publish. Do not write only task notes; the final deliverable must be `brief.md`.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Reviewer Loop Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for the reviewer-loop craftbook. Source notes are in workspace/source/pilot-notes.md and the deliverable is workspace/brief.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use a draft-critique-revise loop to produce brief.md from the seeded returns-desk pilot notes, with concrete sections and source-grounded facts.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/pilot-notes.md",
+        "content": "# Returns Desk Pilot Notes\n\nAudience: customer support leads.\n\n- March pilot covered 18 home-office accessory SKUs.\n- New guided intake form asks for order number, reason code, and photo evidence.\n- Median first response improved from 18 hours to 6 hours.\n- Preventable refund leakage fell from 14.2% to 8.9%.\n- Status silence after photo submission remains the top complaint.\n- Next actions: add automated status emails, train warehouse staff on barcode exceptions, and send Finance a weekly exception export.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Rina",
+      "role": "Writer"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "workspace/brief.md is a source-grounded support-lead brief and task notes show critique/revision loop evidence from the reviewer-loop task.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "brief.md",
+        "kind": "markdown-report",
+        "minBytes": 1400,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "Background",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "What changed",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "Customer impact",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "Risks",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "Next actions",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "18\\s*hours|6\\s*hours"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "14\\.2%|8\\.9%"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "brief.md",
+            "pattern": "status emails|barcode|Finance",
+            "flags": "i"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "taskNotes": {
+      "minBytes": 250,
+      "checks": [
+        {
+          "kind": "contains",
+          "file": "task-notes.md",
+          "pattern": "acceptance criteria|criteria",
+          "flags": "i"
+        },
+        {
+          "kind": "contains",
+          "file": "task-notes.md",
+          "pattern": "critique|PASS|FAIL",
+          "flags": "i"
+        },
+        {
+          "kind": "contains",
+          "file": "task-notes.md",
+          "pattern": "revise|revision|fixed",
+          "flags": "i"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "rubric": {
+    "artifact": {
+      "path": "brief.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": [
+    "draft-review-revision loop",
+    "reviewer routing",
+    "source-grounded prose"
+  ]
+}