@bendyline/gilde 0.1.51 → 0.1.52

package/data/craftbook-templates/ca/case-study-writeup/versions/1.0.3/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+{
+  "id": "case-study-writeup",
+  "name": "Customer Case Study",
+  "description": "Write a persuasive customer/case-study writeup that turns a customer's results into a credible marketing asset — challenge, solution, and quantified results in the classic before/after arc, with a pull-quote and a clear CTA. Scopes the customer story and the hard metrics FIRST (results without numbers are not a case study), writes the narrative copy in the proven challenge-solution-results structure, then builds a clean, branded single-page HTML asset with a results-highlight band and quote callout. Use for marketing case studies, customer success stories, and sales proof assets.\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 story (planner) — the challenge, the solution, and the quantified results + quote → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Write the narrative (copywriter) — challenge -> solution -> results copy with the pull-quote → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/write.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Build the page (developer) — render index.html: results band, quote callout, branded styling → gated on `index.html` (html-marketing-site)\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 case study",
+    "customer success story",
+    "case study writeup",
+    "customer story",
+    "results story",
+    "case study page"
+  ],
+  "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 story",
+      "description": "the challenge, the solution, and the quantified results + quote",
+      "prompt": "Find the story and the proof before writing. Step 1: identify the customer (and their industry/size) and the single headline result that makes this worth publishing. Step 2: map the classic arc: the CHALLENGE (the pain before, ideally with a baseline number), the SOLUTION (what they adopted and how), and the RESULTS (the after, with HARD METRICS — %, time, revenue, scale). Step 3: gather a real customer quote (or note that one is needed) for the pull-quote. Step 4: define the one CTA the asset should drive (demo, contact, signup). Step 5: write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('names the customer + context', 'challenge has a concrete before-state', 'solution is specific', 'results include at least two quantified metrics', 'has a customer pull-quote', 'ends with one clear CTA'). Write the story map + metrics + checklist via write_task_note AND to {{workPath}}/scope.md. Do not invent metrics — if a number is unknown, mark it as a placeholder to fill, not a fabricated stat. No copy or HTML 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",
+      "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 narrative",
+      "description": "challenge -> solution -> results copy with the pull-quote",
+      "prompt": "Write the case-study copy in the proven structure. Step 1: write a results-led headline and a one-line dek summarizing customer + outcome. Step 2: write a short 'at a glance' summary (industry, the 2-3 key metrics) for skimmers. Step 3: write the Challenge section — set the before-state and stakes concretely. Step 4: write the Solution section — what they did, specifically, and why it fit. Step 5: write the Results section leading with the quantified metrics and what they meant for the business; place the customer pull-quote where it lands hardest. Step 6: write the CTA copy. Keep it credible and specific, not hype; let the numbers do the bragging. Use only the metrics from the scope (no invented stats). Write the section-by-section copy 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",
+      "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": "build",
+      "name": "Build the page",
+      "description": "render index.html: results band, quote callout, branded styling",
+      "prompt": "Build the case study as a single self-contained index.html (inline CSS, real branded styling). Step 1: build a header with the results-led headline and dek. Step 2: render an 'at a glance' results band that makes the 2-3 key metrics visually dominant (big numbers, accent color). Step 3: lay out the Challenge -> Solution -> Results sections in order with comfortable reading width and clear section headings. Step 4: render the customer pull-quote as a styled blockquote callout with attribution (name, title, company). Step 5: end with a prominent CTA button. Apply a coherent palette (exact hex) and type scale so it reads as a polished marketing asset, and make it responsive. Drop in the approved copy verbatim; do not invent metrics. On a loop-back, fix ONLY the named gaps. Write the path 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": 1200
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "htmlLint",
+            "file": "index.html"
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkHtmlComplete",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "index.html"
+            }
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "checkCssMinBytes",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "index.html",
+              "minBytes": 600
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "build",
+        "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 case study against the locked criteria. Step 1: open/render index.html. Step 2: check EACH acceptance criterion: customer + context named, a results band makes at least two quantified metrics visually dominant, the Challenge has a concrete before-state, the Solution is specific, the Results lead with the metrics, a customer pull-quote with attribution is present, and one clear CTA button closes it. Step 3: confirm the visual styling is real and branded (palette + type applied, not unstyled) and responsive. Step 4: confirm no metrics were invented beyond the scope. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion with the offending section 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",
+      "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/ca/case-study-writeup/versions/1.0.3/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Customer case-study HTML asset",
+  "objective": "Measure whether the case-study-writeup craftbook scopes challenge, solution, quantified results, and quote before building a polished proof asset.",
+  "tags": [
+    "html-page"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "In the `Case Study Writeup Eval` project, read `source/story.md` and build `index.html`: a one-page customer case study for Harbor & Finch using a challenge-solution-results arc, quantified results, a pull quote, CTA, and branded styling. Vanilla HTML/CSS only is fine.",
+  "setup": {
+    "projectName": "Case Study Writeup Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for the case-study-writeup craftbook. Story facts are in workspace/source/story.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Build a polished one-page case study from seeded facts with challenge, solution, results, quote, CTA, and branded styling.",
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "path": "source/story.md",
+        "content": "# Harbor & Finch Case Study Facts\n\nCustomer: Harbor & Finch, home-office accessories retailer.\nChallenge: preventable refund leakage and slow returns responses.\nSolution: guided intake form, photo evidence, triage queue, barcode exception training.\nResults: first response improved from 18 hours to 6 hours; refund leakage fell from 14.2% to 8.9%; support escalations dropped 21%.\nPull quote: \"The pilot gave our support leads a shared operating picture without slowing the warehouse.\"\nCTA: Book a returns workflow audit.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Noemi",
+      "role": "Developer"
+    }
+  },
+  "mocks": [],
+  "success": {
+    "summary": "workspace/index.html is a branded case-study page with challenge, solution, quantified results, pull quote, and CTA.",
+    "deliverables": [
+      {
+        "path": "index.html",
+        "kind": "html-marketing-site",
+        "minBytes": 3600,
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "cssMinBytes",
+            "bytes": 750,
+            "file": "index.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "jsParses",
+            "file": "index.html"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "Challenge|Solution|Results",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "18\\s*hours|6\\s*hours|14\\.2%|8\\.9%|21%",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "shared operating picture|pull quote|quote",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "Book a returns workflow audit|CTA",
+            "flags": "i"
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "contains",
+            "file": "index.html",
+            "pattern": "Harbor & Finch",
+            "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": [
+    "challenge-solution-results arc",
+    "quantified proof",
+    "branded HTML asset"
+  ]
+}