{
  "skill_name": "plastic-intent-speccing",
  "notes": "Intent 163. Scopes: description triggering (1-4) and behavior (5-8: all-8-sections output, mandatory superseding-ruling case, STOP-and-ask gap rule, tabular alternatives with no em-dash). No dedicated Ruby test file backs this skill yet (natural-language guided command), so all assertions are result: expect-pass pending a real observed run, per the intent-starting evals.json convention.",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "scope": "triggering",
      "set": "train",
      "prompt": "The active intent is at Why with Context and Decisions recorded. Consolidate the enriched Why into spec.md.",
      "expected_output": "Activates plastic-intent-speccing (the user-typed Why-to-How consolidation command).",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "code",
          "check": "router CHOICE == plastic-intent-speccing",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "scope": "triggering",
      "set": "train",
      "prompt": "Turn what we just discussed into the contract the planner builds from.",
      "expected_output": "Activates plastic-intent-speccing; an indirect trigger that names neither the skill nor spec.md.",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "code",
          "check": "router CHOICE == plastic-intent-speccing",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "scope": "triggering",
      "set": "validation",
      "prompt": "Brainstorm this intent.",
      "expected_output": "Does NOT activate plastic-intent-speccing; activates plastic-intent-brainstorming (exploration that produces the enriched Why, upstream of speccing).",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "code",
          "check": "router CHOICE != plastic-intent-speccing",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "scope": "triggering",
      "set": "validation",
      "prompt": "Write the plan.",
      "expected_output": "Does NOT activate plastic-intent-speccing; activates plastic-intent-planning (turns an existing spec.md into plan.md for How, downstream of speccing).",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "code",
          "check": "router CHOICE != plastic-intent-speccing",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "scope": "behavior",
      "set": "train",
      "prompt": "Intent Y is at Why: Context describes the problem and goal, and 5 Decisions are recorded resolving scope, approach, and one rejected alternative. Consolidate into spec.md.",
      "expected_output": "Produces spec.md with Tier: S|M|L as the literal top line above the Spec heading; all 8 template sections present once, in template order (Problem, Goals, Non-Goals, Approach, Alternatives Considered, Decisions, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions); no template placeholder text remains; every recorded Decision is encoded into its matching section.",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "human",
          "check": "Tier line is literally the first line of the file; all 8 sections appear once each, in template order; no placeholder text; every Decision traces to a section",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "scope": "behavior",
      "set": "train",
      "prompt": "Intent Z has Decisions recording D4: ship the setting as a CLI flag. A later Insights entry, timestamped after D4, reads: superseding ruling, ship as a config-file setting instead of a CLI flag, per user correction. Consolidate into spec.md.",
      "expected_output": "The produced spec Approach and Decisions sections encode the LATER ruling (config-file setting); the superseded earlier Decision (CLI flag) does not stand as the shipped design in any section. The Decisions section notes that the later Insight supersedes D4.",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "human",
          "check": "Approach and Decisions state the config-file setting, not the CLI flag; no section still asserts the CLI-flag path as the shipped design",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 7,
      "scope": "behavior",
      "set": "validation",
      "prompt": "Intent W is at Why. Context says the team wants error handling that is more resilient, but no Decision or Insight states which specific mechanism (retry, circuit breaker, or fallback) was chosen. Consolidate into spec.md.",
      "expected_output": "Stops at step 5 (the gap rule) instead of inventing an Approach; asks the user which error-handling mechanism was decided, naming the missing ruling and the section it blocks.",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "human",
          "check": "no invented Approach or Decisions content fills the gap; the agent asks for the missing ruling instead of guessing a default mechanism",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 8,
      "scope": "behavior",
      "set": "validation",
      "prompt": "Intent V has Decisions recording 3 rejected alternatives, each with a one-line reason it lost. Consolidate into spec.md.",
      "expected_output": "Alternatives Considered renders as a table (Alternative, Not chosen because), not the bullet-dash form shown in the template; the produced spec file contains no em-dashes or en-dashes anywhere in the file.",
      "files": [],
      "assertions": [
        {
          "type": "human",
          "check": "Alternatives Considered is a two-column table with one row per rejected alternative; a full-file dash-glyph scan of the produced spec file finds none",
          "result": "expect-pass"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}