@bendyline/gilde 0.1.51 → 0.1.53

package/data/craftbook-templates/to/tone-rewrite/versions/1.0.3/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+{
+  "id": "tone-rewrite",
+  "name": "Brand Tone Rewrite",
+  "description": "Re-voice existing content to a specific brand tone while preserving every fact and the original structure: it first codifies the target voice into a concrete style guide — adjectives, do's and don'ts, banned and preferred words, sentence-length feel, point of view — then rewrites the content line by line to that voice without changing what it says. Covers tone of voice rewrite, rebranding copy, voice and tone, brand voice, re-voice content, and style adaptation. Codifying the voice into checkable rules before rewriting is the point: a small model that has explicit do/don't rules applies the tone consistently, instead of a vague 'make it friendlier' that drifts paragraph to paragraph.\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. Voice scope (planner) — codify the target tone into a concrete, checkable style guide → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/voice-scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Rewrite to voice (copywriter) — re-voice the content to the style guide, preserving meaning → gated on `tone-rewrite.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": "voice-scope",
+  "triggers": [
+    "rewrite in our brand tone",
+    "change the voice",
+    "re-voice this content",
+    "match brand voice",
+    "tone of voice"
+  ],
+  "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": "voice-scope",
+      "name": "Voice scope",
+      "description": "codify the target tone into a concrete, checkable style guide",
+      "prompt": "1) Define the target voice in 3-5 adjectives (e.g. 'confident, warm, plain-spoken'). 2) Translate each adjective into 1-2 concrete rules (e.g. 'confident → no hedging words like maybe/perhaps'; 'plain-spoken → grade-8 reading level, no jargon'). 3) List banned words/phrases and preferred replacements. 4) Set point of view (first/second person), contraction policy, sentence-length feel, and how to handle CTAs. 5) Write or pick one before/after example sentence showing the transformation. Crucially, note what must NOT change: facts, claims, structure, and meaning. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist (e.g. 'every banned word removed'; 'POV/contractions consistent'; 'reading level on target'; 'no fact or section changed'; 'reads as one consistent voice'). Use write_task_note for the style guide + checklist, and write the same to the produces path. No rewrite yet.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/voice-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}}/voice-scope.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/voice-scope.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/voice-scope.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "voice-scope",
+        "maxAttempts": 3
+      },
+      "next": "rewrite",
+      "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": "rewrite",
+      "name": "Rewrite to voice",
+      "description": "re-voice the content to the style guide, preserving meaning",
+      "prompt": "Rewrite the content to the locked style guide. 1) Go section by section, preserving the original structure and headings exactly. 2) Apply every voice rule: remove banned words, use the specified POV and contraction policy, hit the target sentence feel and reading level. 3) Change HOW it reads, never WHAT it says — every fact, number, claim, and instruction must survive unchanged. 4) Keep the voice identical across the whole piece; no drift. 5) Output the rewritten content in the same format/markdown as the source. Save to the produces path and note which style rules you applied and confirm no facts changed.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "tone-rewrite.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "tone-rewrite.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "tone-rewrite.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "rewrite",
+        "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"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluate",
+      "name": "Evaluate",
+      "description": "Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.",
+      "prompt": "Compare tone-rewrite.md to the source and the style guide. Check EACH criterion and write PASS/FAIL: (a) every banned word/phrase is gone and preferred terms used; (b) POV, contraction policy, and reading level match the guide; (c) NO fact, number, claim, or section was changed or dropped (diff the meaning carefully — this is critical); (d) structure/headings preserved; (e) reads as one consistent voice with no drift. A rewrite that nails the tone but altered a fact FAILS — loop back to rewrite.\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: \"rewrite\" })` 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": "tone-rewrite.md"
+        }
+      ],
+      "next": "rewrite",
+      "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/to/tone-rewrite/versions/1.0.3/test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": 1,
+  "title": "Brand Tone Rewrite smoke eval",
+  "objective": "Self-contained smoke eval for the Brand Tone Rewrite craftbook using the corpus generic harness.",
+  "tags": [
+    "corpus"
+  ],
+  "prompt": "We need a brand tone rewrite 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": "Brand Tone Rewrite Eval",
+    "about": "Self-contained eval project for tone-rewrite. Seeded inputs are under workspace/source or workspace/fixtures; final deliverable is workspace/report.md.",
+    "missionObjectives": "Use the Brand Tone Rewrite 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": "# Brand Tone Rewrite 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: tone-rewrite - Brand Tone Rewrite.\n"
+      }
+    ],
+    "worker": {
+      "name": "Jules",
+      "role": "Writer"
+    }
+  },
+  "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/to/topic-explainer/versions/1.0.3/craftbook.json

@@ -0,0 +1,274 @@
+{
+  "id": "topic-explainer",
+  "name": "Topic Explainer",
+  "description": "Explain a complex topic clearly for a defined audience: a planner pins the audience, their assumed prior knowledge, and the concepts that must be taught, a researcher gathers accurate facts and good analogies with sources, and a copywriter writes a progressively-structured explainer that builds from fundamentals to the full picture. The ordering matters because an explainer written without a fixed audience either condescends or loses people, and one written without a concept map skips a prerequisite; locking the audience and a concept dependency order first guarantees the explanation actually lands. Use this for 'explain X like I'm a beginner/expert', concept explainers, how-it-works guides, ELI5/ELI-expert pieces, and turning a hard topic into an accessible read.\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 explainer (planner) — audience, assumed knowledge, and concept dependency order → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/scope.md` (markdown-notes)\n2. Gather facts & analogies (researcher) — accurate facts, examples, and analogies with sources → gated on artifact `{{workPath}}/facts.md` (markdown-notes)\n3. Write the explainer (copywriter) — progressive explainer from fundamentals to full picture → gated on `explainer.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": [
+    "explain this topic",
+    "how does X work",
+    "explain like I'm a beginner",
+    "make this concept accessible",
+    "write an explainer on"
+  ],
+  "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 explainer",
+      "description": "audience, assumed knowledge, and concept dependency order",
+      "prompt": "1. Pin the target audience and their assumed prior knowledge in one sentence (e.g. 'curious non-technical adult, no math'), and the target length. 2. List the concepts that MUST be understood, then order them by dependency (what must be taught before what) — this is the explainer's spine. 3. Decide the structure: a one-line 'what it is', then fundamentals, then the mechanism, then implications/examples, then a recap; flag where an analogy or a worked example is needed. 4. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist (e.g. 'no concept is used before it is introduced', 'jargon is defined on first use', 'at least 2 concrete examples or analogies', 'a reader at the assumed level could follow it', 'every factual claim is accurate and cited where non-obvious'). 5. Record decisions. Call write_task_note with the audience, concept order, structure, 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",
+      "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": "research",
+      "name": "Gather facts & analogies",
+      "description": "accurate facts, examples, and analogies with sources",
+      "prompt": "1. For each concept in the dependency order, gather accurate facts into {{workPath}}/facts.md with sources [n] for any non-obvious or quantitative claim, prioritizing authoritative explanations. 2. Find or craft at least two concrete examples and one strong analogy per hard concept, and sanity-check that each analogy does not mislead (note where it breaks down). 3. Note common misconceptions about the topic so the explainer can pre-empt them. 4. Verify any figure or mechanism against a reliable source; mark uncertain points UNVERIFIED. Good looks like a fact file where every concept has accurate grounding plus a teaching device. Do not write the explainer yet.\n\nThe deliverable `{{workPath}}/facts.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}}/facts.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty",
+        "artifact": true
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/facts.md",
+            "bytes": 120,
+            "artifact": true
+          },
+          {
+            "kind": "sniff",
+            "file": "{{workPath}}/facts.md",
+            "sniff": "nonempty",
+            "artifact": true
+          }
+        ],
+        "onReject": "research",
+        "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",
+          "workspace-fs-write"
+        ],
+        "outputMedium": "artifact"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "write",
+      "name": "Write the explainer",
+      "description": "progressive explainer from fundamentals to full picture",
+      "prompt": "1. Write explainer.md following the locked concept order: a crisp one-line 'what it is', then build up concept by concept so nothing is referenced before it is introduced. 2. Define every term on first use, and use the gathered examples/analogies to make hard concepts concrete (note where an analogy breaks down). 3. Pre-empt the common misconceptions. 4. Match the assumed-knowledge level exactly — neither condescend nor assume away prerequisites. 5. Cite non-obvious facts [n] and end with a short recap of the key takeaways. 6. On a loop-back, fix only the named gaps. 7. Call write_task_note with the explainer path and which criteria now pass.",
+      "suggestedRole": "copywriter",
+      "advanceWhen": {
+        "file": "explainer.md",
+        "minBytes": 1,
+        "sniff": "nonempty"
+      },
+      "gate": {
+        "at": "completion",
+        "checks": [
+          {
+            "kind": "minBytes",
+            "file": "explainer.md",
+            "bytes": 500
+          }
+        ],
+        "scripts": [
+          {
+            "name": "checkContains",
+            "scope": "standard",
+            "inputs": {
+              "file": "explainer.md",
+              "pattern": "(?:^|\\n)#{1,3}\\s+\\S",
+              "flags": "i"
+            }
+          }
+        ],
+        "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": "Open explainer.md and check EACH criterion PASS/FAIL: (1) no concept is used before it is introduced (trace the dependency order from {{workPath}}/scope.md); (2) every jargon term is defined on first use; (3) at least two concrete examples or analogies appear and any analogy notes where it breaks down; (4) it matches the assumed-knowledge level — readable by the target audience without condescension; (5) non-obvious facts are cited and accurate (spot-check 2 against {{workPath}}/facts.md); (6) a recap of takeaways closes it. An explainer that drops a prerequisite, leaves jargon undefined, or misstates a fact FAILS.\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": "explainer.md"
+        }
+      ],
+      "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"
+}