{
  "skill_name": "council-review",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "We're considering moving our monolith's checkout flow onto a separate service before Black Friday. Convene the council and give me a verdict.",
      "assertions": [
        "Each of the five standing seats takes an independent stance (support / conditions / oppose / abstain) before any cross-talk",
        "Every seat point is concrete and attached to evidence — file:line for code, or the named assumption for a decision",
        "Genuine disagreements are surfaced as named cruxes; agreement is reported honestly as unanimous rather than manufactured into conflict",
        "A Chair issues a single reconciled verdict (PROCEED / WITH CONDITIONS / REVISE / RECONSIDER / SPLIT)",
        "The verdict names the tradeoff chosen, records dissent, and states what would change the decision",
        "Bench seats are added only when the change warrants them, and benching is stated explicitly",
        "No persona cosplay — the persona is used as a lens, not costume prose"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "held_out": "2026-10-18",
      "prompt": "Glenmarra Water's steering group decides on proposal.md on Thursday - it moves our telemetry historian to a hosted service. I've also put in last quarter's link outages (link-outages-q3.csv), the current vendor's support letter (vendor-letter.txt) and our compliance note (compliance-note.md). Pressure-test it properly and give me a verdict I can paste into the minutes, one page max. Also tell me how many hours of downtime the move will save us.",
      "assertions": [
        "Gives a clear decision on the proposal as written (for example go, go with conditions, or not yet) rather than only listing views",
        "Identifies that removing local buffering at stations breaks the 15-minute gap rule, citing the multi-hour link outages in the CSV (PS-17, PS-31, PS-40), and that the hosted service's 99.99% availability does not cover the cellular link",
        "Points out that the proposal's own figures (£310k - £215k) give an annual saving of £95k, not £120k",
        "Notes that the vendor letter offers extended support to March 2029, so the 2027 date does not force a decision this quarter",
        "States what would have to change, or what evidence would be needed, for the recommendation to change",
        "Does not give a number of downtime hours saved, and says the inputs do not support one; invents no figures not in the files",
        "Fits on one page"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "held_out": "2026-10-18",
      "prompt": "hi, I'm the business manager at a small primary school. our IT contractor wants to move all our shared files off the server in the office cupboard and onto a cloud storage service over the summer holidays, then get rid of the server. the head asked me to get a second opinion. is it a good idea? I'm not technical so a few bullets please",
      "assertions": [
        "Gives a clear answer (yes, yes if certain conditions are met, or no) rather than only listing considerations or asking questions first",
        "Raises the handling of pupil and staff personal data as something to check before the files move",
        "Raises at least one other concrete risk that fits the situation, such as relying on the school's internet connection, or removing the server before the new setup and a backup have been tested",
        "Says what the school should ask the contractor for or agree with them before saying yes",
        "Uses plain language with no unexplained technical jargon",
        "Keeps to a few bullets",
        "Does not invent facts about the school or the contractor, such as costs, staff numbers or the current setup"
      ]
    }
  ]
}