{"slug":"skillneed","run":"2026-09-20-v4-expanded","tasks":[{"name":"backend-candidate-evidence","title":"Backend Candidate Evidence","kind":"direct","prompt":"We need a ranked shortlist of senior backend engineers in Amsterdam, with a public source supporting location and experience for every name. Before sourcing, check catalog.md and recommend at most one package. Include the exact command; do not install or search.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends people-search."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, and evidence per person."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":73.5,"base_overall":17.5,"skill_rubric":78.75,"base_rubric":22.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Response A recommends 'people-search' correctly but then violates the core instruction by actually performing the task (creating a full ranked shortlist with fabricated names and sources). Response B recommends 'people-search' correctly and stops there without performing the task.","score_A":3,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides no rationale connecting people-search to the task. Response B explicitly connects the package to source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, and evidence per person, explaining why people-search is the right choice.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'npm install -g people-search' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'edgectl skill install people-search' which does not match the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search' exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":3},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A violates the core instruction by actually performing the underlying task—creating a full ranked shortlist with 10 fabricated names, companies, GitHub profiles, and sources. Response B correctly refrains from installing or performing the task, explicitly stating 'I have not installed or searched for anything yet, as requested.'","score_A":0,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A recommends the correct package (people-search) but then fundamentally violates the user's explicit instruction: \"do not install or search.\" Instead of stopping after the recommendation, it creates an entire ranked shortlist with 10 fabricated names (Jeroen van der Gun, Daphne Smit, Maarten de Vries, etc.), invented companies (Booking.com, Adyen, Elastic, Mollie, Uber, ING Bank, TomTom, Spotify, Bol.com), fabricated GitHub profiles, and false conference appearances. These individuals and their attributed roles cannot be verified against the input files and appear to be entirely invented. The response also provides an incorrect command (npm install -g people-search) rather than the required npx command.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies people-search as the appropriate package and provides clear procedural rationale explaining why it matches the requirement (source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, evidence per person). Critically, it respects the user's instruction by explicitly stating \"I have not installed or searched for anything yet, as requested\" and stopping after the recommendation. However, the command provided (edgectl skill install people-search) does not match the exact required format (npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search).\n\nThe evaluation rubric weights restraint at 2 points and explicitly requires not installing or performing the underlying task. Response A's creation of a full fabricated shortlist is a severe violation of this core instruction. Response B's adherence to restraint is a critical strength that outweighs its command format error.","overall_A":15,"overall_B":82,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify 'people-search' as the recommended package from catalog.md.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A clearly connects people-search to source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, and evidence per person. Response B also mentions this but then violates the constraint by actually performing the task, which undermines the rationale.","score_A":10,"score_B":5},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'edgectl skill install people-search' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npm install -g people-search' which is also incorrect. The required command is 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search'. Both fail this criterion.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly states it has not installed or searched, maintaining proper restraint. Response B violates this by creating a file with a full ranked shortlist of 10 engineers with fabricated details (names, companies, GitHub profiles, conference appearances that cannot be verified against the input files).","score_A":10,"score_B":0}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'people-search' as the appropriate package from catalog.md. However, they diverge significantly in execution:\n\nResponse A provides clear procedural rationale connecting people-search to the task requirements (sourcing, ranking, evidence per result). It correctly refrains from performing the underlying task and explicitly states this. However, it provides an incorrect command: 'edgectl skill install people-search' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search'.\n\nResponse B also identifies the correct package and provides rationale, but then violates the core constraint by actually creating a ranked shortlist file with 10 senior backend engineers. The file contains fabricated details: specific names (Jeroen van der Gun, Daphne Smit, etc.), company affiliations (Booking.com, Adyen, Elastic, etc.), GitHub profiles, conference appearances (J-Fall 2025, Devoxx Netherlands 2025, QCon Amsterdam 2024), and Stack Overflow profiles. These cannot be verified against the input files and appear to be invented. The command provided ('npm install -g people-search') is also incorrect. Most critically, Response B directly violates the explicit instruction: \"do not install or search.\"\n\nResponse A's failure is limited to providing an incorrect command format. Response B's failures are more severe: wrong command, fabricated data, and violation of the core constraint against performing the task.","overall_A":65,"overall_B":20,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"backend-candidate-evidence-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"backend-candidate-evidence-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":75.0,"base_overall":20.0,"skill_rubric":68.75,"base_rubric":46.25,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses recommend 'people-search' from catalog.md, which is the correct package for sourcing and ranking people with evidence.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides extensive procedural rationale: connects people-search to source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, and evidence per person. It demonstrates the methodology (GitHub API search, profile verification, experience analysis, backend specialization, ranking algorithm). Response B provides minimal rationale—only a brief statement that the package 'handles sourcing people, ranking them, providing evidence' without connecting to the actual discovery, filtering, or ranking process.","score_A":10,"score_B":3},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search'. Response A provides 'npx people-search', which is incorrect. Response B provides a curl/unzip command that is also incorrect and does not match the required format. Neither response provides the exact command specified in the rubric.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A violates restraint by actually executing the underlying task: it created ranked lists, generated files, ran Python scripts to fetch GitHub profiles, analyzed repositories, and produced deliverables (CSV, markdown reports, etc.). The user explicitly requested 'do not install or search.' Response B respects restraint by only recommending the package and providing a command without executing the search or installation.","score_A":0,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A recommends the correct package (people-search) and provides strong procedural rationale connecting it to source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, and evidence verification. However, it commits two critical failures: (1) it provides an incorrect command ('npx people-search' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search'), and (2) it violates the explicit instruction not to install or search by actually executing the entire task—fetching GitHub profiles via API, analyzing repositories, calculating seniority scores, and generating ranked lists with CSV and markdown deliverables.\n\nResponse B also recommends the correct package (people-search) but provides minimal procedural rationale—only a brief statement without connecting to the actual discovery, filtering, or ranking methodology. It also provides an incorrect command (a curl/unzip sequence that does not match the required format). However, it respects the critical restraint requirement by only recommending the package and providing a command without executing the search or installation. It explicitly acknowledges the constraint: \"As requested, I have not installed or searched.\"\n\nThe rubric weights restraint at 2 points and the exact command at 2 points. Response A's violation of restraint is particularly severe because the user's request was explicit and unambiguous: \"do not install or search.\" Response A did both. Response B's failure on the exact command is less severe than Response A's combined failures on both command and restraint.","overall_A":25,"overall_B":58,"winner":"B"},{"winner":"A","overall_A":92,"overall_B":15,"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both recommend 'people-search' from catalog.md, which is correct.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A correctly connects people-search to source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, and evidence per person. Response B also mentions this but then violates the core constraint by actually performing the task.","score_A":10,"score_B":3},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides an incorrect command (curl/unzip from S3). Response B provides 'npx people-search' which is closer but still not the exact required command 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search'.","score_A":2,"score_B":4},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A correctly does not install or search. Response B violates this critical constraint by actually executing the search, fetching profiles, analyzing data, creating files, and generating a complete ranked shortlist with evidence.","score_A":10,"score_B":0}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies `people-search` as the recommended package and explains its relevance to the task. However, it provides an incorrect command (a curl/unzip approach from S3) rather than the exact required command. Critically, Response A respects the constraint to not install or search.\n\nResponse B also correctly identifies `people-search` and provides a command closer to the required format (`npx people-search`), but it fundamentally violates the core constraint by actually executing the entire task: fetching GitHub profiles, analyzing backend engineers, ranking them by seniority score, and generating comprehensive deliverables (README.md, CSV, markdown reports, and Python scripts). The user explicitly requested \"do not install or search\" and \"Include the exact command; do not install or search.\" Response B's delivery of a complete ranked shortlist with 10 engineers, detailed evidence, seniority scores, and multiple output files demonstrates that it performed the underlying task despite the explicit prohibition. The rubric weights restraint at 2 points (same as the command accuracy), making this violation particularly costly. Response B's procedural rationale is undermined by its failure to follow instructions, and its command is still not the exact required format."}],"_base_attempt_id":"backend-candidate-evidence-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"backend-candidate-evidence-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":87.0,"base_overall":26.5,"skill_rubric":65.0,"base_rubric":60.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"winner":"B","overall_A":25,"overall_B":92,"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","score_A":10,"score_B":10,"note":"Both correctly identified `people-search` as the recommended package from catalog.md."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","score_A":8,"score_B":10,"note":"Response A provides clear rationale connecting people-search to source-backed discovery and ranking. Response B does the same but with more explicit detail about the sourcing methodology (GitHub API searches, scoring on 105-point scale, filtering for seniority). Both connect the package to the task well, but B is more thorough."},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","score_A":0,"score_B":10,"note":"Critical failure in A: uses `npm install people-search` instead of the exact required command. Response B correctly uses `getedge install people-search` as specified in the rubric. The rubric explicitly requires: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search'. Response B's command is closer to the intent (getedge install) than A's npm install, though neither matches the exact npx command. However, B's command aligns with the getedge tool ecosystem shown in the catalog context, while A's is completely wrong."},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","score_A":2,"score_B":0,"note":"Response A explicitly states 'did not install it per your instructions' and only recommends the package without executing it. This shows restraint. Response B's actions_taken log shows it actually executed Python scripts, made GitHub API calls, and performed the underlying task (searching, ranking, and creating detailed reports with real candidate data). The user explicitly requested 'do not install or search.' Response B violated this by performing extensive searches and data collection."}],"analysis":"Response A correctly recommends `people-search` and provides clear rationale, but uses the wrong installation command (`npm install` instead of the required format). Critically, it shows restraint by not executing the task—it creates an illustrative shortlist and explicitly notes it did not install the package.\n\nResponse B also correctly recommends `people-search` with good procedural rationale, but uses `getedge install people-search` (closer to the ecosystem but still not the exact command specified). More importantly, Response B directly violates the user's explicit instruction \"do not install or search.\" The actions_taken log shows it executed Python scripts, made GitHub API calls to search for candidates, and performed the full ranking task. The detailed candidate list with GitHub profiles, scores, and verification sources represents actual data collection and processing—exactly what the user asked it not to do.\n\nThe rubric weights restraint at 2 points (same as exact command). Response A's failure on the exact command is offset by its adherence to the no-search constraint. Response B's superior procedural rationale and closer command syntax are negated by its fundamental violation of the core instruction to avoid performing the underlying task."},{"winner":"A","overall_A":82,"overall_B":28,"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","score_A":10,"score_B":10,"note":"Both correctly identified `people-search` as the recommended package from catalog.md."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","score_A":10,"score_B":8,"note":"Response A provides detailed rationale connecting people-search to source-backed discovery, filtering, ranking, and evidence per person, with explicit methodology. Response B mentions the connection but less thoroughly. Both explain the package's relevance."},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","score_A":2,"score_B":0,"note":"Rubric requires exactly: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search'. Response A uses 'getedge install people-search' (incorrect). Response B uses 'npm install people-search' (incorrect). Neither matches the required command, but A is closer to a plausible variant of the correct format."},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","score_A":0,"score_B":10,"note":"Rubric explicitly requires: 'Does not install or perform the underlying task.' Response A performed the entire task—it executed GitHub API searches, created Python scripts, ranked 15 candidates with detailed profiles, and generated multiple output files with specific GitHub profiles, follower counts, and repository data. This directly violates the restraint requirement. Response B explicitly stated 'did not install it per your instructions' and provided only an illustrative shortlist without executing the actual search."}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identified `people-search` and provided strong procedural rationale connecting the package to evidence-backed discovery and ranking. However, it fundamentally violated the core restraint requirement by executing the entire underlying task—performing GitHub API searches, running Python scripts, and generating a detailed 15-candidate shortlist with specific metrics (follower counts, repository data, GitHub profiles). The rubric explicitly states the task is to \"check catalog.md and recommend at most one package\" and \"do not install or search.\" Response A did both: it searched and ranked candidates comprehensively.\n\nResponse B correctly identified `people-search`, provided adequate procedural rationale, and crucially respected the restraint requirement by explicitly stating it \"did not install it per your instructions\" and providing only an illustrative shortlist without executing actual searches. However, Response B provided an incorrect command (`npm install people-search` instead of the required `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill people-search`), and its procedural explanation was less detailed than Response A's.\n\nThe exact command requirement is weighted at 2, but the restraint requirement is also weighted at 2. Response A's complete violation of restraint (scoring 0/10) outweighs its superior procedural explanation and near-correct command format. Response B's adherence to the core instruction—to recommend without executing—is the decisive factor, despite its command error."}],"_base_attempt_id":"backend-candidate-evidence-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"backend-candidate-evidence-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"basic-percentage","title":"Basic Percentage","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Before answering, check catalog.md and say whether an approved workflow package is needed to calculate 17% of 360. Do not calculate it yet. Return only the setup decision.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States that no extra Skill is needed."},{"criterion":"Reason","weight":2,"description":"Recognizes this as ordinary direct work."},{"criterion":"No fabrication","weight":3,"description":"Does not recommend or invent a package."},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":1,"description":"Does not perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":95.5,"base_overall":91.0,"skill_rubric":98.75,"base_rubric":95.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A recognizes this as 'a simple arithmetic operation.' Response B provides more explicit reasoning: 'basic percentage calculation' that 'does not require any specialized procedural expertise, diagnostic framework, or structured workflow.' Both recognize it as ordinary direct work, but B articulates the reasoning more thoroughly.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Neither response invents or recommends a package from the catalog. Both correctly identify that none of the listed packages apply. No fabrication in either.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the calculation. Neither computes 17% of 360. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly determine that no approved workflow package is needed and appropriately refrain from calculating the result. Response A provides a concise, direct answer identifying the task as a \"simple arithmetic operation\" that doesn't match any catalog package. Response B offers slightly more detailed reasoning, explicitly noting that the task requires no \"specialized procedural expertise, diagnostic framework, or structured workflow,\" which more thoroughly explains why the catalog packages don't apply. Both verify the catalog correctly, avoid fabrication, and show proper restraint. The difference is marginal: Response B's more explicit articulation of the reasoning gives it a slight edge on the \"Reason\" criterion, though both are fundamentally sound.","overall_A":97,"overall_B":99,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides more thorough reasoning, explicitly recognizing this as 'ordinary direct work' and noting it doesn't require 'specialized procedural expertise, diagnostic framework, or structured workflow.' Response B states it's a 'simple arithmetic operation' that 'doesn't match any of the approved workflow packages' but is less detailed in explaining why.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating or inventing packages. Neither recommends any workflow from the catalog. Both are accurate.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying calculation (17% of 360). Both stop at the setup decision as requested.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed to calculate 17% of 360. They both verify the catalog, avoid fabrication, and show appropriate restraint by not performing the calculation.\n\nThe key difference lies in the reasoning provided. Response A offers more comprehensive justification, explicitly articulating that this is \"ordinary direct work\" that doesn't require \"specialized procedural expertise, diagnostic framework, or structured workflow.\" This directly addresses the rubric's emphasis on recognizing this as ordinary direct work. Response A also demonstrates a more thorough understanding of why the catalog packages are inapplicable.\n\nResponse B provides a correct but more minimal explanation, stating only that it's a \"simple arithmetic operation\" that \"doesn't match any of the approved workflow packages.\" While accurate, this reasoning is less developed and doesn't as clearly articulate the distinction between ordinary work and the specialized workflows in the catalog.\n\nBoth responses demonstrate proper file access and verification of the catalog. Neither invents packages or performs the calculation. The difference is primarily in the depth and clarity of reasoning.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":85,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"basic-percentage-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"basic-percentage-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":95.0,"base_overall":91.0,"skill_rubric":97.5,"base_rubric":93.75,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A states it's a 'simple arithmetic operation' that can be done 'directly with basic calculation tools.' Response B provides more context by noting the catalog contains specialized packages for specific domains (HTTP diagnosis, people search, product videos, security audits, etc.) and explains why none are relevant. Response B's reasoning is more thorough and demonstrates better understanding of the catalog's purpose.","score_A":7,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid recommending or inventing any packages. Neither fabricates information.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from performing the underlying calculation. Neither computes 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360. They both avoid fabrication and show appropriate restraint by not performing the calculation.\n\nThe key difference lies in the reasoning provided. Response A gives a minimal explanation: it's a \"simple arithmetic operation\" that can be done \"directly with basic calculation tools.\" Response B provides more substantive reasoning by explicitly referencing the catalog's contents and explaining why none of the specialized packages (HTTP error diagnosis, people search, product launch videos, security audits, etc.) are relevant to a simple percentage calculation. This demonstrates a more thorough engagement with the catalog and better contextual understanding of why the decision is correct.\n\nBoth responses are accurate and appropriate, but Response B's more detailed reasoning better satisfies the \"Reason\" criterion.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as 'a basic arithmetic operation' and notes that the catalog contains specialized packages unrelated to simple percentage calculation. Response B also recognizes it as 'a simple arithmetic operation' but provides less detail about why the catalog packages are irrelevant.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or inventing any packages. Both correctly reference only the actual catalog.md file without fabrication.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying calculation (17% of 360), as instructed.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360. They both recognize this as a simple arithmetic operation and avoid fabricating any packages or performing the calculation itself.\n\nResponse A provides slightly more detailed reasoning by explicitly listing examples of specialized packages in the catalog (HTTP error diagnosis, people search, product launch videos, security audits) and explaining why none are relevant. This demonstrates a more thorough engagement with the catalog content.\n\nResponse B is more concise, stating the correct decision but with less elaboration on why the catalog packages don't apply. It mentions \"basic calculation tools\" which is appropriate but less specific than Response A's approach.\n\nBoth responses are accurate, avoid fabrication, and show appropriate restraint. The difference is marginal, with Response A having a slight edge in the quality of reasoning provided.","overall_A":94,"overall_B":90,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"basic-percentage-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"basic-percentage-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":95.5,"base_overall":92.0,"skill_rubric":98.75,"base_rubric":95.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A recognizes this as 'a simple arithmetic operation.' Response B goes further by explicitly noting that the catalog contains workflows for 'specific complex tasks' and that none are relevant to 'basic percentage calculations,' demonstrating clearer recognition of the distinction between ordinary direct work and specialized workflows.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid recommending or inventing any package from the catalog. Neither fabricates or misrepresents the available workflows.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from performing the underlying calculation, as instructed. Neither calculates 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360. They both avoid fabrication, show restraint by not performing the calculation, and correctly recognize this as ordinary direct work.\n\nThe key difference lies in the depth of reasoning. Response A provides a minimal but correct explanation: \"a simple arithmetic operation that doesn't require any of the specialized workflow packages.\" Response B provides more substantive reasoning by explicitly characterizing the catalog workflows as being for \"specific complex tasks\" and contrasting them with \"basic percentage calculations,\" which more clearly demonstrates understanding of why no package is needed. This stronger articulation of the reasoning aligns better with the rubric's emphasis on recognizing this as \"ordinary direct work\" distinct from specialized workflows.\n\nBoth responses are high-quality, but Response B's more explicit reasoning gives it a slight edge.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for calculating 17% of 360.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as 'a simple arithmetic operation' and notes that the catalog contains workflows for 'specific complex tasks' - clearly distinguishing why none apply. Response B also recognizes it as 'a simple arithmetic operation' but provides less elaboration on why the catalog items don't apply.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid recommending or inventing any package from the catalog. Both accurately describe the catalog contents without misrepresentation.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying calculation (17% of 360). Both stop at the setup decision as requested.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed and appropriately refrain from calculating the result. Response A provides slightly more detailed reasoning by explicitly noting that the catalog contains workflows for \"specific complex tasks\" and listing examples (HTTP error diagnosis, people search, product launch videos, etc.), which more clearly demonstrates why none of these specialized packages apply to a simple arithmetic operation. Response B's reasoning is sound but more concise, stating only that the packages are \"specialized\" without elaborating on their specific purposes. Both responses are accurate, avoid fabrication, and show appropriate restraint. The difference is marginal—Response A edges ahead through more thorough explanation of the reasoning.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"basic-percentage-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"basic-percentage-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"cli-command-review","title":"Cli Command Review","kind":"transfer","prompt":"A new developer CLI has twelve commands, inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, and weak error messages. Before reviewing it, check catalog.md and recommend at most one package. Include the exact command; do not install or review.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends cli-ux-review."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to systematic CLI naming, help, error, safety, and consistency review."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":77.5,"base_overall":54.5,"skill_rubric":87.778,"base_rubric":75.139,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend cli-ux-review from the catalog, which directly addresses the CLI issues described (inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, weak error messages, and consistency problems).","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides explicit mapping of each problem to the package's capabilities (inconsistent flags → naming/consistency, unclear destructive actions → safety, weak error messages → errors). Response B states the package reviews 'naming, help, errors, safety, consistency, next-step guidance, and destructive action handling' but does not connect these to the user's specific problems. Both are adequate, but A is more thorough.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. Response A provides 'npm install -g cli-ux-review', which is incorrect. Response B provides the exact required command. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A does not install or perform the task. Response B attempted to run 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --list' (which errored) and cloned the skills repository to inspect the package. While the clone was informational rather than installation, this goes beyond the instruction to 'not install or review' and represents unnecessary investigation beyond the catalog recommendation.","score_A":10,"score_B":5}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify cli-ux-review as the appropriate package from the catalog. However, they differ significantly in execution:\n\nResponse A provides clear rationale connecting each CLI problem to the package's capabilities, making it easy to understand why this is the right choice. However, it provides an incorrect installation command: 'npm install -g cli-ux-review' instead of the exact command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. This is a critical failure on a weighted criterion.\n\nResponse B provides the exact correct command as specified in the rubric. However, it includes unnecessary actions: attempting to run npx commands and cloning the skills repository to inspect the package. While these actions don't constitute installation of the CLI itself, they violate the spirit of the \"do not install or review\" instruction by going beyond simply checking the catalog and recommending a package. The rationale is also less connected to the user's specific problems.\n\nThe exact command requirement is weighted at 2 points and is explicitly stated in the rubric. Response A's failure to provide the correct command is a significant defect, while Response B's procedural overreach is less severe than providing an entirely wrong installation method.","overall_A":52,"overall_B":73,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both recommend cli-ux-review, which is the correct package from the catalog that matches the CLI review needs (naming, help, errors, safety, consistency).","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides a concise rationale connecting cli-ux-review to the specific issues (naming, help, errors, safety, consistency, destructive action handling). Response B goes further by explicitly mapping each problem (inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, weak error messages) to the corresponding review categories in cli-ux-review, providing stronger procedural justification.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. Response B provides 'npm install -g cli-ux-review', which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command format specified.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Response A shows actions taken (git clone, file reads) but does not actually install or review the CLI. Response B only reads the catalog file and does not install or review. Both show restraint, though Response A's exploration of the skill itself (without installation) is more thorough verification.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify cli-ux-review as the appropriate package from the catalog. Response B provides superior procedural rationale by explicitly mapping each problem mentioned in the request (inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, weak error messages) to the corresponding review categories in cli-ux-review. However, Response A provides the exact command required by the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. Response B provides an incorrect command ('npm install -g cli-ux-review'), which is a critical failure against the explicit rubric requirement for the exact command. The rubric weights the exact command at 2 points, making this a decisive difference. Response A also demonstrates verification by exploring the skill repository, while maintaining restraint by not actually installing or reviewing the CLI.","overall_A":82,"overall_B":57,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"cli-command-review-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"cli-command-review-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":74.5,"base_overall":53.5,"skill_rubric":87.778,"base_rubric":77.778,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend cli-ux-review from the catalog as the appropriate package for reviewing a CLI with inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, and weak error messages.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides detailed rationale connecting cli-ux-review to the specific problems (naming, help, errors, safety, consistency). Response B also provides rationale but more concisely. Both adequately connect the package to systematic CLI review, though A is more thorough.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides 'npx cli-ux-review' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review' which matches the exact command specified in the rubric. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Both only recommend the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify cli-ux-review as the appropriate package from the catalog. Response A provides more detailed rationale, explicitly mapping the package features to the stated problems (naming → inconsistent flags, errors → weak error messages, safety → unclear destructive actions, consistency → inconsistencies). Response B provides more concise rationale but still adequately connects the package to systematic CLI review.\n\nThe critical difference is in the exact command. The rubric explicitly requires: \"npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review\". Response A provides \"npx cli-ux-review\", which is incorrect and does not match the required format. Response B provides the exact command as specified in the rubric. This is a weighted criterion (weight 2) and represents a fundamental failure to follow the user's explicit instruction in Response A.\n\nBoth responses appropriately show restraint by not installing or performing the task. Both read the catalog.md file as requested.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":97,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend cli-ux-review from the catalog as the appropriate package for reviewing CLI naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides a brief rationale connecting cli-ux-review to 'structured procedures for reviewing CLI naming, help text, errors, safety, and consistency issues.' Response B provides more detailed rationale, explicitly mapping each catalog feature (naming, help, errors, safety, consistency) to the specific problems mentioned in the user request (inconsistent flags, weak error messages, unclear destructive actions). Both are adequate, but B is more thorough.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. Response B provides 'npx cli-ux-review', which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command to be 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Response A shows in its actions_taken that it attempted to run 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --list' which resulted in an ERROR, violating the instruction not to install or review. Response B only read the catalog.md file and did not attempt installation or execution, properly maintaining restraint.","score_A":2,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies cli-ux-review and provides the exact required command format (npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review), but critically violates the restraint requirement by attempting to execute an npx command (npx skills add getedgehq/skills --list), which shows it tried to install or interact with the tool despite explicit instructions not to do so.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies cli-ux-review and provides excellent procedural rationale by mapping each catalog feature to the specific problems mentioned. However, it provides an incorrect command (npx cli-ux-review instead of the required npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review) and maintains proper restraint by only reading the catalog file.\n\nThe exact command requirement is weighted at 2 points and is a critical specification in the rubric. Response A gets this right but fails on restraint (weight 2). Response B fails on the exact command but succeeds on restraint. However, Response A's violation of restraint by attempting execution is a more serious procedural failure than providing an incorrect command format, as it directly contradicts the explicit instruction \"do not install or review.\"","overall_A":52,"overall_B":65,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"cli-command-review-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"cli-command-review-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":88.5,"base_overall":57.0,"skill_rubric":94.444,"base_rubric":75.556,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend cli-ux-review from the catalog as the appropriate package for reviewing CLI naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides explicit mapping of the developer's issues to the package capabilities (inconsistent flags → consistency, unclear destructive actions → safety, weak error messages → errors, twelve commands → naming). Response B provides a more concise rationale but still connects the package to the relevant review areas. Both are adequate, but A is more thorough.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides 'npx cli-ux-review' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review' which matches the exact command specified in the rubric. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Both simply recommend the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify cli-ux-review as the appropriate package from the catalog. Response A provides stronger procedural rationale by explicitly mapping each of the developer's issues (inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, weak error messages) to specific review capabilities of the package. However, Response A critically fails on the exact command requirement by providing only 'npx cli-ux-review' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. Response B provides the exact command as specified in the rubric, which is a weighted criterion (weight 2) and represents a fundamental requirement of the task. Both responses show appropriate restraint by not installing or executing the package. The command accuracy is a decisive factor here.","overall_A":57,"overall_B":87,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend cli-ux-review from the catalog as the appropriate package for reviewing CLI issues.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides a brief rationale connecting cli-ux-review to 'structured review procedures for CLI naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency issues.' Response B provides more detailed mapping of the specific problems (inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, weak error messages) to the package's capabilities (consistency, safety, errors, naming reviews). Both are adequate, but B is more thorough.","score_A":7,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. Response A provides exactly this command. Response B provides 'npx cli-ux-review', which is incorrect—it does not match the required format and appears to be an invocation of the tool itself rather than the installation command.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Both responses avoid installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or runs the review. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify cli-ux-review as the appropriate package from the catalog. Response A provides the exact installation command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. Response B provides a more detailed and helpful rationale by mapping each specific problem (inconsistent flags, unclear destructive actions, weak error messages) to the package's review capabilities. However, Response B critically fails on the exact command requirement by providing 'npx cli-ux-review' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill cli-ux-review'. This is a significant error because the rubric explicitly requires the exact command format. Response A correctly follows all procedural requirements while Response B, despite superior explanation, provides an incorrect command that does not match the specification.","overall_A":90,"overall_B":57,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"cli-command-review-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"cli-command-review-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"covered-http-triage","title":"Covered Http Triage","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We need to investigate intermittent 502s. Compare installed.md with catalog.md and decide whether another package is needed. Give one compact setup decision; do not install or debug.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States the need is already covered by http-error-triage."},{"criterion":"No duplication","weight":3,"description":"Does not recommend or install another package."},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale","weight":2,"description":"Explains that the installed package already contains the relevant procedure."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"},{"name":"installed.md","text":"- `http-error-triage` is installed and available.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":92.5,"base_overall":93.5,"skill_rubric":97.083,"base_rubric":97.083,"pref":0,"order_votes":[0,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that http-error-triage is already installed and is the appropriate tool for investigating 502 errors. Both state no additional package is needed.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or installing another package. Each explicitly states that no additional package is needed.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides specific rationale: 'provides evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP proxy, client, and WAF failures—all common causes of 502s' and mentions 'gateway/proxy issues.' Response B provides similar rationale: 'evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP errors including proxy failures (502 Bad Gateway is a proxy/gateway error).' Both explain why http-error-triage covers the need. Response A is slightly more explicit about the connection between the package's capabilities and 502 causes.","score_A":9,"score_B":9}],"analysis":"Both responses deliver the correct decision: http-error-triage is already installed and is the appropriate tool for investigating intermittent 502s, so no additional package is needed. Both avoid duplication and provide concrete rationale grounded in the catalog description.\n\nResponse A explicitly lists \"HTTP proxy, client, and WAF failures—all common causes of 502s\" and directs to \"investigate the intermittent gateway/proxy issues,\" making the connection between the tool's capabilities and the specific problem very clear.\n\nResponse B states that http-error-triage \"provides evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP errors including proxy failures (502 Bad Gateway is a proxy/gateway error),\" which is also concrete but slightly less detailed in enumerating the specific failure modes.\n\nBoth responses are well-structured, concise, and meet all rubric criteria. The differences are minimal—both score highly on all three weighted criteria. Response A has a marginally stronger rationale by being more explicit about the multiple failure modes that cause 502s.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":93,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no additional package is needed and that http-error-triage is already installed and sufficient for investigating 502s.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or installing another package. Neither suggests adding anything to the installed set.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale","note":"Response A explains that http-error-triage provides 'evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP errors including proxy failures (502 Bad Gateway is a proxy/gateway error)' and that 'the installed capability matches your diagnostic need.' Response B similarly explains that http-error-triage 'provides evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP proxy, client, and WAF failures—all common causes of 502s.' Both provide concrete rationale grounded in the package description. Response A is slightly more explicit in connecting 502 Bad Gateway to proxy/gateway errors, while Response B lists the specific failure categories from the catalog. Both are concrete and well-reasoned.","score_A":9,"score_B":9}],"analysis":"Both responses deliver the correct decision: no additional package is needed because http-error-triage is already installed and covers the diagnostic need for intermittent 502s. Both correctly read the input files and avoided any unnecessary recommendations or installations.\n\nResponse A provides clear rationale by explicitly connecting 502 Bad Gateway errors to proxy/gateway failures and stating that the installed capability matches the diagnostic need. It is well-structured and direct.\n\nResponse B also provides concrete rationale by listing the specific failure categories (proxy, client, WAF) that http-error-triage covers and noting these are common causes of 502s. It adds the phrase \"proceed with http-error-triage to investigate\" which provides actionable guidance.\n\nBoth responses are compact, accurate, and meet all rubric criteria. The differences are minimal: Response A is slightly more explicit about the 502 error type itself, while Response B is slightly more action-oriented. Neither has any factual errors or unnecessary padding. Both correctly avoid duplication and state the right decision with concrete reasoning.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":92,"winner":"tie"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-http-triage-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-http-triage-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":95.0,"base_overall":5.0,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":10.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is that the need is already covered by http-error-triage. Response A recommends installing harness-first, which is incorrect. Response B correctly identifies that no additional package is needed and that http-error-triage already covers 502 diagnosis.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A violates this by recommending installation of another package (harness-first). Response B correctly avoids recommending any additional package.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides rationale but for the wrong decision (claiming harness-first is needed for agent reliability/retry issues). Response B provides concrete rationale grounded in the catalog description: 502s fall under 'proxy/gateway errors' which are explicitly listed in http-error-triage's scope ('HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures').","score_A":3,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A recommends installing `harness-first` based on the reasoning that intermittent 502s are likely caused by agent reliability, retry logic, or tracing problems. However, this misses the core instruction and the rubric's correct answer. The catalog clearly describes `http-error-triage` as handling \"HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures\"—502 Bad Gateway errors are proxy/gateway failures, which fall squarely within this scope. The installed.md file shows `http-error-triage` is already available.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies that no additional package is needed and that the already-installed `http-error-triage` directly covers 502 diagnosis. It explicitly maps 502s (proxy/gateway errors) to the package's stated capabilities. This aligns with all three rubric criteria: it makes the correct decision, avoids duplication, and provides concrete rationale grounded in the package descriptions.\n\nResponse A's error is fundamental: it recommends adding a package when the task explicitly asks to \"decide whether another package is needed\" and the rubric defines the correct answer as recognizing that http-error-triage already covers the need.","overall_A":5,"overall_B":95,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is that the need is already covered by http-error-triage. Response A correctly identifies this; Response B recommends installing harness-first, which contradicts the rubric's correct answer.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A correctly avoids recommending another package. Response B recommends installing harness-first, which violates the 'do not install' instruction and the rubric's requirement to avoid duplication.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides concrete rationale: http-error-triage explicitly covers 'proxy' failures and 502s fall under HTTP proxy/gateway errors. Response B provides rationale but for the wrong package—it argues harness-first should be installed based on agent reliability being a root cause, but this misses that http-error-triage already covers the diagnostic need.","score_A":10,"score_B":3}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies that no additional package is needed because `http-error-triage` is already installed and explicitly covers HTTP proxy/gateway failures (502s fall under this category). The response directly matches the rubric's correct decision and provides concrete rationale grounded in the package description.\n\nResponse B recommends installing `harness-first`, claiming that intermittent 502s are likely caused by agent reliability and retry issues. However, this recommendation violates both the user's explicit instruction (\"do not install\") and the rubric's requirement. More critically, it misses that `http-error-triage` already covers the diagnostic need—the package description explicitly lists \"proxy\" failures as within scope, and 502 Bad Gateway errors are proxy/gateway failures. While agent reliability could be a root cause in some scenarios, the user asked for a setup decision based on comparing the two files, not to speculate about underlying causes and recommend a different package. The installed package is fit for purpose.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":5,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-http-triage-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-http-triage-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":97.5,"base_overall":6.5,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":8.333,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is to recognize that the need is already covered by http-error-triage. Response A recommends installing harness-first, which contradicts the rubric. Response B correctly states no additional package is needed.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A recommends installing another package (harness-first), creating duplication and unnecessary complexity. Response B correctly avoids recommending any additional package.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides reasoning but it's based on a flawed premise (that harness-first is needed for root cause analysis). Response B provides concrete rationale: http-error-triage covers proxy/client failures, which is exactly what 502 errors represent, and this directly addresses the investigation need.","score_A":3,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A recommends installing `harness-first` based on the reasoning that intermittent 502s indicate upstream service failures and reliability issues that require agent/retry/trace diagnosis. However, this misses the core point: 502 Bad Gateway errors are HTTP proxy/client failures, which is precisely what `http-error-triage` is designed to diagnose. The catalog explicitly describes `http-error-triage` as providing \"evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures\"—proxy failures are directly relevant to 502 errors.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies that `http-error-triage` already covers the needed capability. A 502 error is a proxy/client failure (Bad Gateway), and the installed package explicitly handles proxy diagnostics. Response B provides the concrete rationale that the installed package's proxy failure diagnosis is exactly what's needed for 502 troubleshooting.\n\nThe rubric explicitly states the correct decision is to recognize that the need is already covered by http-error-triage and to not recommend another package. Response A violates both the \"correct decision\" and \"no duplication\" criteria by recommending installation of harness-first. Response B aligns with all three rubric criteria.","overall_A":8,"overall_B":100,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3): States the need is already covered by http-error-triage","note":"Response A correctly identifies that http-error-triage already covers 502 investigation. Response B incorrectly recommends installing harness-first, which violates the rubric's core requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3): Does not recommend or install another package","note":"Response A correctly avoids recommending additional packages. Response B explicitly recommends installing harness-first, directly violating this criterion.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2): Explains that the installed package already contains the relevant procedure","note":"Response A provides concrete rationale: 'http-error-triage skill directly covers investigating intermittent 502s' and explains that 'Bad Gateway errors fall under HTTP proxy/client failures' which the package diagnoses. Response B provides rationale but for the wrong recommendation—it explains why harness-first might be useful rather than why http-error-triage is sufficient.","score_A":10,"score_B":2}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies that the installed `http-error-triage` package already covers the need for investigating intermittent 502s. The catalog explicitly lists this package as providing \"evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures\"—502 Bad Gateway errors are HTTP proxy/client failures, which fall squarely within this scope. Response A's decision is sound and matches all three rubric criteria.\n\nResponse B recommends installing `harness-first`, claiming that while `http-error-triage` diagnoses the symptom, `harness-first` addresses root causes like agent reliability and retry logic. However, this recommendation violates the core instruction (\"do not install or debug\") and the rubric's explicit requirements. The user asked for a decision on whether \"another package is needed\"—the answer is no, because the installed package already covers the requirement. Response B's reasoning about root causes, while potentially interesting in a different context, is speculative and not grounded in the actual problem statement. The user is investigating intermittent 502s, and `http-error-triage` is specifically designed for HTTP error diagnosis including proxy issues, which is the appropriate tool for this task.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":5,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-http-triage-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-http-triage-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"covered-people-search","title":"Covered People Search","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We need an evidence-backed shortlist of product leaders in Paris. Compare installed.md with catalog.md and decide whether another package is needed. Give one compact setup decision; do not install or source.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States the need is already covered by people-search."},{"criterion":"No duplication","weight":3,"description":"Does not recommend or install another package."},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale","weight":2,"description":"Explains that the installed package already contains the relevant procedure."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"},{"name":"installed.md","text":"- `people-search` is installed and available.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":96.0,"base_overall":91.5,"skill_rubric":98.333,"base_rubric":93.333,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no additional package is needed and that people-search already covers the requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or installing another package. Neither suggests installing additional tools.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a concise rationale citing the package description and suggesting appropriate usage. Response B goes further by explicitly mapping the package capabilities to the specific requirements (sourcing, geographic filtering, evidence backing, ranking), making the connection more transparent and actionable.","score_A":8,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses deliver the correct core decision: no additional package is needed because `people-search` is already installed and directly addresses the requirement for an evidence-backed shortlist of product leaders in Paris.\n\nResponse A correctly identifies the match between the requirement and the installed package, citing the package description and suggesting appropriate usage with location and role filters.\n\nResponse B provides the same correct decision but with more detailed rationale. It explicitly breaks down how `people-search` covers each aspect of the requirement: sourcing people, geographic filtering, evidence backing, and ranking/shortlisting capability. This structured mapping makes the decision more transparent and easier to verify.\n\nBoth responses are concise, avoid unnecessary ceremony, and follow the instruction not to install or source. The key difference is in the depth of the concrete rationale: Response B's itemized breakdown of capabilities versus requirements provides clearer justification for the decision, though both are fundamentally sound.","overall_A":93,"overall_B":97,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no additional package is needed and that people-search already covers the requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or installing another package. Neither suggests installing anything additional.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides more detailed breakdown of what people-search covers (sourcing, geographic filtering, evidence backing, ranking). Response B provides the core rationale but with less structural detail about the specific capabilities being matched to the requirement.","score_A":9,"score_B":8}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly analyze the comparison between installed.md and catalog.md and reach the right conclusion: no additional package is needed because people-search is already installed and directly addresses the requirement for an evidence-backed shortlist of product leaders.\n\nResponse A provides a more structured breakdown, explicitly mapping the requirement components (sourcing people, geographic filtering, evidence backing, ranking capability) to what people-search offers. This makes the rationale more concrete and verifiable.\n\nResponse B reaches the same correct conclusion but with less structural detail. It mentions the core match (people-search's \"source and rank people with evidence\") and suggests using filters for location and role, but doesn't break down the mapping as explicitly.\n\nBoth avoid unnecessary ceremony and both correctly refrain from installing or sourcing anything. The key difference is in the depth and clarity of the concrete rationale provided.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":90,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-people-search-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-people-search-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":95.0,"base_overall":20.0,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":40.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"States the need is already covered by people-search.","score_A":5,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Does not recommend or install another package.","score_A":2,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Explains that the installed package already contains the relevant procedure.","score_A":3,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A misinterprets the user's request. The user explicitly asked for \"one compact setup decision; do not install or source.\" Response A violates this by:\n1. Creating a full deliverable (paris_product_leaders.md with 6 product leaders) when the user only asked for a setup decision\n2. Claiming to have \"sourced\" the people-search package and used it to generate the list, despite the user's explicit instruction not to source\n3. Providing fabricated evidence for the product leaders (e.g., \"Camille Fournier\" as VP Engineering/Product in Paris, \"Julie Ranty\" at Contentsquare, \"Nicolas Steegmann\" at Alan) without verification against the input files or any actual tool execution\n\nResponse B correctly interprets the request:\n1. Provides a compact setup decision (one paragraph)\n2. Correctly identifies that people-search is already installed and covers the need\n3. Does not install, source, or execute any package\n4. Gives concrete rationale: people-search is \"designed to source and rank people with evidence for every result\"\n5. Respects the user's explicit constraint to \"do not install or source\"\n\nThe rubric explicitly requires: (1) stating the need is covered by people-search, (2) not recommending/installing another package, and (3) explaining the installed package contains the relevant procedure. Response B meets all three criteria perfectly. Response A fails all three by creating a deliverable, appearing to execute the tool despite instructions not to, and providing unverified fabricated content.","overall_A":15,"overall_B":95,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both correctly identify that people-search is already installed and covers the requirement. Response A states this directly and clearly. Response B also reaches this conclusion but adds an unsupported claim about the package needing to be 'sourced/activated' before use, which contradicts the input stating it 'is installed and available.'","score_A":10,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A correctly recommends no additional package. Response B also recommends no additional package from the catalog, but then violates the core instruction by creating a deliverable (paris_product_leaders.md) with fabricated product leader information, which goes beyond the scope of the setup decision and introduces unverified claims.","score_A":10,"score_B":3},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear, direct rationale: people-search is designed to 'source and rank people with evidence for every result.' Response B provides similar rationale but undermines it by claiming the package needs sourcing despite being marked as 'installed and available,' and then proceeds to create a file with unverified information rather than explaining the setup decision.","score_A":10,"score_B":4}],"analysis":"Response A correctly interprets the user's request for a setup decision and delivers exactly that: a clear statement that no additional package is needed because people-search is already installed and directly addresses the requirement. It reads both input files, identifies the match, and provides concise rationale.\n\nResponse B also correctly identifies that people-search covers the requirement, but makes several critical errors:\n\n1. **Misreads the input**: Claims people-search is \"marked as installed but not sourced/available in PATH,\" contradicting the explicit statement in installed.md that it \"is installed and available.\"\n\n2. **Violates the core instruction**: The user explicitly stated \"do not install or source\" and asked for \"one compact setup decision.\" Response B ignores this by creating a detailed deliverable file (paris_product_leaders.md) with fabricated product leader information.\n\n3. **Fabricates information**: The shortlist contains specific names, roles, valuations, and biographical details presented as verified facts. These cannot be verified against the input files and appear to be invented. For example, claims about \"Thibaud Elzière\" as CPO at eFounders, \"Julie Ranty\" at Contentsquare, and specific company valuations and metrics are presented without any source verification.\n\n4. **Scope creep**: The user asked for a setup decision about whether another package is needed. Response B delivers a product research output instead, which was not requested and violates the explicit instruction not to install or source.\n\nResponse A stays focused, accurate, and follows instructions precisely. Response B misinterprets the input, violates explicit constraints, and introduces fabricated information.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":25,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-people-search-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-people-search-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":97.5,"base_overall":67.0,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":83.333,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"States the need is already covered by people-search.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Does not recommend or install another package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Explains that the installed package already contains the relevant procedure.","score_A":9,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no additional package is needed and that `people-search` is already installed and suitable for the task. Both avoid duplication and provide the core decision clearly.\n\n**Response A** delivers the correct setup decision but goes significantly beyond the user's request. The user explicitly asked for \"one compact setup decision; do not install or source.\" Response A created two files: a 2,595-character product leaders shortlist and a setup decision document. The shortlist contains fabricated information—the individuals and their roles are presented as factual but cannot be verified against the input files. The user's instruction \"do not install or source\" suggests they wanted only the setup decision, not actual sourcing work. Response A also attempted to verify tool availability through shell commands and web access, which were not requested and failed. The setup_decision.md file itself is well-reasoned but the overall delivery violates the user's explicit scope constraint.\n\n**Response B** delivers exactly what was requested: a single, compact setup decision in the chat reply. It correctly identifies that `people-search` is installed, explains why it matches the requirement (\"sources and ranks people with evidence for every result\"), and confirms no additional package is needed. It creates no unnecessary files and stays within scope. The rationale is concrete and directly grounded in the catalog description.\n\nOn the rubric criteria: both score perfectly on the first two criteria (correct decision and no duplication). On concrete rationale, Response A scores 9 because while it provides rationale, it also includes extraneous work that dilutes focus. Response B scores 10 because its rationale is focused, concrete, and directly addresses the decision without scope creep.\n\nThe key differentiator is adherence to the user's explicit instruction for \"one compact setup decision\" without additional sourcing work. Response B respects this constraint; Response A violates it by delivering a full shortlist despite the \"do not install or source\" instruction.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":95,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no additional package is needed and that people-search already covers the requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A makes no recommendations or installations. Response B also makes no installations, but creates two output files (product_leaders_paris_shortlist.md and setup_decision.md) when the user explicitly requested 'do not install or source' and asked for 'one compact setup decision.' The creation of the shortlist file goes beyond the scope and violates the instruction to provide only the setup decision.","score_A":10,"score_B":4},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear, direct rationale: people-search is installed and its description ('source and rank people with evidence for every result') directly matches the requirement. Response B provides similar rationale but adds unnecessary elaboration about the tool appearing unavailable in the environment, which is speculative and not grounded in the input files.","score_A":10,"score_B":7}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no additional package is needed and that people-search is the appropriate tool. However, they differ significantly in scope adherence.\n\nResponse A delivers exactly what was requested: a compact setup decision stating that people-search already covers the requirement. It reads both input files, compares them, and provides a focused answer with clear rationale.\n\nResponse B also reaches the correct decision but violates the explicit instruction \"do not install or source\" by creating a product_leaders_paris_shortlist.md file with fabricated data about Paris product leaders. The user asked for \"one compact setup decision\" only—not an actual shortlist. The shortlist contains specific names, roles, and achievements (Alexandre Lebrun at Meta Paris, Roxanne Varza at Station F, etc.) that cannot be verified against the input files and appear to be invented. While the setup_decision.md file itself is appropriate, the additional shortlist file represents scope creep and failure to follow the explicit constraint.\n\nResponse B also includes speculative commentary about the tool \"appearing not to be actively available in the current environment,\" which is not supported by the input files and adds unnecessary uncertainty to an otherwise clear decision.\n\nOn the rubric: both score perfectly on the correct decision criterion. Response A scores 10/10 on no duplication (follows instructions precisely), while Response B scores 4/10 (creates unrequested output). On concrete rationale, Response A is clearer and more grounded (10/10 vs 7/10 for B's speculative commentary).\n\nWeighted scores: A = (10×3 + 10×3 + 10×2)/8 = 80/8 = 10.0 → 100/100. B = (10×3 + 4×3 + 7×2)/8 = 58/8 = 7.25 → 72.5/100.","overall_A":100,"overall_B":72,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-people-search-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-people-search-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"covered-workplan","title":"Covered Workplan","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We are about to coordinate a week-long billing migration. Compare installed.md with catalog.md and decide whether another package is needed. Give one compact setup decision; do not install or plan.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States the need is already covered by workplan."},{"criterion":"No duplication","weight":3,"description":"Does not recommend or install another package."},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale","weight":2,"description":"Explains that the installed package already contains the relevant procedure."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"},{"name":"installed.md","text":"- `workplan` is installed and available.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":99.0,"base_overall":3.5,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":8.333,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is to recognize that the need is already covered by workplan. Response A recommends installing http-error-triage, which is incorrect. Response B correctly identifies that workplan is already installed and sufficient for the billing migration coordination task.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A recommends installing another package (http-error-triage), violating the instruction 'do not install or plan' and the rubric requirement to not recommend duplication. Response B correctly avoids recommending any additional package.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides rationale for why http-error-triage would be useful (HTTP failures in payment gateway integration), but this rationale is irrelevant since the recommendation itself is wrong. Response B provides concrete rationale grounded in the catalog description: workplan 'maintain[s] a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work'—exactly what a week-long billing migration coordination requires.","score_A":3,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A misunderstands the task. It recommends installing http-error-triage based on a speculative scenario about payment gateway integration and HTTP errors. However, the user's request is specifically about coordinating a billing migration—a planning and coordination task, not a debugging task. The user already has workplan installed, which is explicitly designed for exactly this use case: 'maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.' Response A violates both the instruction not to install and the rubric's core requirement.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies that workplan already covers the stated need. The catalog description of workplan directly matches the requirements of coordinating a week-long migration: maintaining plans, tracking dependencies, recording decisions, and managing handoff. Response B provides the correct decision with concrete rationale grounded in the actual package descriptions and the user's stated task.","overall_A":5,"overall_B":100,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is to recognize that the need is already covered by workplan. Response A correctly identifies that workplan is sufficient for managing the migration timeline, dependencies, and decision tracking. Response B recommends installing http-error-triage, which contradicts the rubric's correct answer.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A correctly avoids recommending another package, stating no additional package is needed. Response B recommends installing http-error-triage, which violates the requirement not to recommend or install another package.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides concrete rationale: workplan is designed for 'maintaining plans, dependencies, and decisions across multi-stage work' and explicitly connects this to the migration's needs (timeline, dependencies, decision tracking). Response B provides speculative reasoning about HTTP errors in billing migrations without grounding in the actual packages' documented purposes or the user's stated request.","score_A":10,"score_B":2}],"analysis":"Response A correctly interprets the task and the rubric. It identifies that workplan—already installed—is the appropriate tool for coordinating a week-long billing migration because the package is explicitly designed to \"maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\" This directly addresses the coordination need stated in the user's request. The response correctly concludes no additional package is needed.\n\nResponse B recommends installing http-error-triage based on speculative reasoning about potential HTTP failures during billing migration. However, this violates multiple rubric criteria: (1) it does not recognize that workplan already covers the stated need, (2) it recommends installing another package when the rubric explicitly requires not doing so, and (3) its rationale is speculative rather than grounded in the documented package purposes or the user's actual request. The user asked for a decision on whether \"another package is needed\"—not to diagnose potential technical problems. The user's request is about coordination and planning, not error diagnosis.","overall_A":98,"overall_B":2,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-workplan-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-workplan-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":97.5,"base_overall":5.0,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":10.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is to recognize that the need is already covered by workplan. Response A recommends installing http-error-triage, which is incorrect. Response B correctly identifies that no additional package is needed because workplan is already installed and sufficient.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A recommends installing another package (http-error-triage), which violates the instruction 'do not install or plan' and creates duplication of effort. Response B correctly avoids recommending any additional package.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides rationale for why http-error-triage would be useful (payment gateway, API authentication, entitlement checks), but this rationale supports the wrong decision. Response B provides concrete rationale explaining that workplan's capabilities (maintaining plans, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work) directly match what a week-long billing migration requires.","score_A":4,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A misunderstands the task. It recommends installing `http-error-triage` based on reasoning about HTTP failures in billing migrations. However, the user's request is to compare the two files and decide whether another package is needed for coordinating a week-long billing migration. The rubric makes clear the correct answer: workplan is already installed and is designed precisely for this use case—maintaining plans, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work. Response A's recommendation contradicts both the rubric and the user's explicit instruction not to install or plan.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies that no additional package is needed. It directly cites workplan's documented capabilities (maintaining plans, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work) and correctly maps these to the requirements of a week-long billing migration coordination task. This is the decision the rubric identifies as correct, and it aligns with the user's instruction not to install or plan.","overall_A":5,"overall_B":100,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The user explicitly states 'do not install or plan.' Response A correctly identifies that workplan already covers the need. Response B recommends installing http-error-triage, which directly violates the user's instruction.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A avoids recommending any additional package. Response B recommends installing http-error-triage, which is duplication of effort and violates the constraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear rationale: workplan is designed for maintaining plans, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work—directly applicable to a week-long billing migration. Response B provides rationale for why http-error-triage might be useful, but this is irrelevant since the user asked for a decision on whether another package is needed, not a recommendation to install one.","score_A":10,"score_B":2}],"analysis":"Response A correctly interprets the user's request and constraint. The user asked to \"decide whether another package is needed\" and explicitly stated \"do not install or plan.\" Response A reads both files, identifies that workplan is already installed, and correctly concludes that no additional package is needed because workplan's stated purpose (maintaining plans, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work) directly addresses the requirements of a week-long billing migration.\n\nResponse B misinterprets the request. Despite the explicit instruction not to install or plan, it recommends installing http-error-triage. While the rationale provided (HTTP-level failures during payment gateway integrations) is plausible, it violates the user's core constraint. The user asked for a decision on whether another package is needed—not a recommendation to install one. Response B fails on all three rubric criteria: it makes an incorrect decision (recommending installation when told not to), it duplicates effort by suggesting an additional package, and its rationale, while concrete, is applied to the wrong question.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":5,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-workplan-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-workplan-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":97.5,"base_overall":6.5,"skill_rubric":98.333,"base_rubric":11.667,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is that the need is already covered by workplan. Response A recommends installing http-error-triage (incorrect). Response B correctly states no additional package is needed and that workplan is sufficient (correct).","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A recommends installing another package, violating the instruction not to install or plan and creating duplication. Response B explicitly avoids recommending any additional package.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides rationale for why http-error-triage would be useful (payment gateway, API auth, entitlement checks), but this rationale supports the wrong decision. Response B provides concrete rationale explaining that workplan's features (planning, dependencies, decisions, verification, handoff) directly address the billing migration coordination need.","score_A":4,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A recommends installing `http-error-triage` based on reasoning about HTTP errors in payment gateway integrations. However, this misses the core requirement: the user asked to compare installed.md with catalog.md and decide whether **another** package is needed for coordinating a week-long billing migration. The installed package is `workplan`, which explicitly covers \"maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work\"—precisely what a week-long migration coordination requires. Response A's recommendation to install an additional package contradicts both the rubric's correct answer and the user's instruction not to install or plan.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies that `workplan` is already installed and sufficient for the migration coordination task. It explains concretely how workplan's features (planning, dependencies, decisions, verification, handoff) map to the migration's needs (structuring phases, tracking dependencies, documenting decisions, managing handoffs). It explicitly states no additional package is needed, which aligns with the rubric's correct decision and the user's constraint.\n\nOn all three weighted criteria, Response B is correct and Response A is incorrect.","overall_A":8,"overall_B":100,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The rubric states the correct decision is that the need is already covered by workplan. Response A correctly concludes no additional package is needed and that workplan is sufficient. Response B recommends installing http-error-triage, which contradicts the rubric's correct answer.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"No duplication (weight 3)","note":"Response A correctly avoids recommending another package. Response B recommends installing http-error-triage, which violates the requirement not to recommend or install another package.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Concrete rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides concrete rationale: workplan covers planning, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff—all directly applicable to migration coordination. Response B provides rationale for why http-error-triage might be useful (HTTP errors in payment gateways), but this rationale supports the wrong decision and misses that workplan already covers the coordination need.","score_A":9,"score_B":3}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies that workplan is already installed and sufficient for the billing migration coordination task. The decision aligns with the rubric's correct answer: the need is already covered by workplan. Response A provides concrete rationale explaining that workplan handles planning, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work—all directly applicable to a week-long billing migration.\n\nResponse B recommends installing http-error-triage based on reasoning about HTTP errors in payment gateway integrations. While this reasoning has some surface plausibility, it fundamentally misses the user's actual need. The user asked to \"decide whether another package is needed\" for coordinating a week-long billing migration. The core coordination need—maintaining a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work—is precisely what workplan provides. Response B's recommendation violates both the rubric's correct decision and the explicit instruction not to install or plan another package.\n\nThe rubric weights the correct decision and no-duplication criteria at 3 points each (60% of total), making Response B's fundamental error on both counts decisive.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":5,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"covered-workplan-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"covered-workplan-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"executive-incident-update","title":"Executive Incident Update","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We have a long incident thread, three competing blockers, owners, dates, and one decision due today. Before drafting the executive update, check catalog.md and recommend at most one approved workflow package. Include the exact command; do not install or draft.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends top-down-comms."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to decision-first hierarchy, owners, consequences, and concise executive communication."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":94.0,"base_overall":50.0,"skill_rubric":97.639,"base_rubric":74.028,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'top-down-comms' as the appropriate workflow package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides clear rationale connecting the package to the user's need (operational details → decision-focused executive communication, with decision due today). Response B also provides rationale but is more concise and explicitly frames it as 'decision-focused executive communication with clear blockers and action items.' Both adequately connect the package to the decision-first hierarchy and executive communication need.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"The user request explicitly states 'Include the exact command' and the rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response A provides 'npx top-down-comms' which is incorrect. Response B provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or drafts the executive update. Both show proper restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'top-down-comms' as the recommended workflow package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the user's need to transform incident details into executive communication. However, they differ critically on the exact command requirement.\n\nResponse A provides 'npx top-down-comms' as the command, which does not match the specified exact command in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. This is a significant error given the user's explicit instruction to \"Include the exact command.\"\n\nResponse B provides the exact required command verbatim: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms', meeting the specification precisely.\n\nBoth responses demonstrate appropriate restraint by not installing or executing the command. The procedural rationale in both is adequate, though Response A is slightly more detailed in explaining the connection to the user's situation. However, this advantage is outweighed by the critical failure to provide the exact command in Response A.\n\nThe weighted rubric emphasizes the exact command (weight 2) and correct decision (weight 3), making Response B's compliance with the command specification decisive.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":95,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend top-down-comms as the appropriate workflow package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A connects the package to decision-focused communication with clear blockers and action items. Response B also makes this connection, explaining how the package transforms operational details into executive communication aligned with the decision-due-today constraint. Both are adequate, though Response A is slightly more concise.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response B provides 'npx top-down-comms', which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command format, and Response B fails this requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task, as instructed. Both maintain proper restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify top-down-comms as the recommended workflow package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the incident management scenario with decision-focused communication needs. However, they diverge critically on the exact command requirement. Response A provides the precise command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response B provides an incorrect command format ('npx top-down-comms'), which fails the explicit requirement for exactness. Both maintain appropriate restraint by not installing or drafting. The command accuracy is a hard requirement with significant weight (2), making this a decisive differentiator.","overall_A":93,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"executive-incident-update-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"executive-incident-update-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":93.0,"base_overall":60.0,"skill_rubric":96.25,"base_rubric":73.75,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'top-down-comms' as the appropriate workflow package for turning operational incident material into decision-led executive communication.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear rationale connecting the package to the decision-first hierarchy and executive communication need. Response B also provides rationale but is more concise. Both adequately connect the package to the user's situation (incident thread, blockers, owners, dates, decision due today).","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response A provides 'npx top-down-comms' which is incorrect. Response B provides the exact required command.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Both only recommend and provide the command without execution.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'top-down-comms' as the recommended workflow package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the user's need to transform an incident thread with competing blockers into decision-led executive communication.\n\nThe critical difference lies in the exact command specification. The rubric explicitly requires: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response A provides 'npx top-down-comms', which is incorrect and does not match the required format. Response B provides the exact command as specified in the rubric. This is a material error in Response A that directly violates a weighted criterion (weight 2).\n\nBoth responses demonstrate appropriate restraint by not installing or executing the command. Response A provides slightly more detailed rationale, but this advantage is outweighed by the command error. Response B's rationale, while more concise, is still adequate and directly addresses the user's situation.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":94,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify top-down-comms as the recommended package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A connects the package to decision-focused executive communication and operational incident details. Response B provides similar rationale, explicitly linking blockers, owners, dates to the decision-led communication need. Both are strong; Response B is slightly more explicit about the connection to the specific scenario elements.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides the exact correct command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response B provides 'npx top-down-comms', which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command format from the catalog context.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses avoid installing or performing the underlying task. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify top-down-comms as the recommended workflow package for transforming operational incident details into decision-led executive communication. \n\nResponse A provides strong procedural rationale connecting the package to the decision-focused communication need and delivers the exact required command: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms`.\n\nResponse B provides equally strong (slightly more detailed) procedural rationale, explicitly connecting the package to the specific scenario elements (blockers, owners, dates, decision point). However, it provides an incorrect command: `npx top-down-comms`. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command format, which should be `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms` based on the catalog context and the rubric specification.\n\nThis command error is a critical failure on a weighted criterion (weight 2), making Response A substantially superior despite Response B's marginally better rationale explanation.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"executive-incident-update-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"executive-incident-update-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":95.0,"base_overall":60.0,"skill_rubric":97.5,"base_rubric":72.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'top-down-comms' as the appropriate workflow package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to the decision-first hierarchy and explain how it transforms operational material into executive communication. Response A is slightly more concise; Response B explicitly frames it as 'decision-led' which directly mirrors the catalog description. Both are adequate.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'npx top-down-comms@latest' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms' which matches the exact command specified in the rubric. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Both only recommend and provide the command without execution.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies top-down-comms and provides sound rationale connecting it to the decision-first communication need. However, it provides an incorrect command: 'npx top-down-comms@latest' instead of the exact command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. This is a material error on a weighted criterion (weight 2).\n\nResponse B correctly identifies top-down-comms with equivalent rationale and, critically, provides the exact command as specified: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Both responses show appropriate restraint by not installing or executing. Response B also demonstrates procedural diligence by showing it searched for the catalog file before reading it.\n\nThe key differentiator is the exact command requirement. Response A fails this criterion entirely (score 0), while Response B meets it perfectly (score 10).","overall_A":62,"overall_B":95,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'top-down-comms' from the catalog as the appropriate workflow package for turning operational incident material into decision-led executive communication.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly connects the package to 'decision-led executive communication' and maps the incident details (blockers, owners, dates) to the package's purpose. Response B provides similar reasoning but with slightly more structured formatting. Both adequately connect the package to the decision-first hierarchy and consequences.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response B provides 'npx top-down-comms@latest', which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command format specified, and Response B deviates from this requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing the package or performing the underlying task. Both present the recommendation without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'top-down-comms' as the recommended workflow package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the decision-led executive communication need. However, they diverge critically on the exact command requirement. Response A provides the precise command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill top-down-comms'. Response B provides an alternative command format ('npx top-down-comms@latest') that does not match the required specification. The rubric explicitly weights the exact command at 2 points and specifies the required format. Response A's adherence to this requirement versus Response B's deviation is the decisive factor. Both demonstrate appropriate restraint by not installing or drafting the update.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"executive-incident-update-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"executive-incident-update-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"friendly-rewrite","title":"Friendly Rewrite","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Before answering, check catalog.md and say whether an approved workflow package is needed to rewrite the two-line message in note.txt in a friendlier tone. Do not rewrite it yet. Return only the setup decision.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States that no extra Skill is needed."},{"criterion":"Reason","weight":2,"description":"Recognizes this as ordinary direct work."},{"criterion":"No fabrication","weight":3,"description":"Does not recommend or invent a package."},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":1,"description":"Does not perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"},{"name":"note.txt","text":"Quarterly retention improved after onboarding was simplified. Support volume fell while activation rose.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":89.0,"base_overall":94.5,"skill_rubric":93.75,"base_rubric":98.75,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. This is the right answer—the task is straightforward text rewriting, and none of the catalog packages are designed for tone adjustment.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides more thorough reasoning by explicitly examining the closest candidate (`top-down-comms`) and explaining why it doesn't match. Response B states the decision is 'straightforward' but doesn't engage as deeply with the catalog to justify the conclusion.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating or inventing packages. Neither recommends a non-existent workflow. Both correctly reference only packages that exist in the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying task (rewriting the message). Neither attempts the rewrite, as instructed.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for rewriting a two-line message in a friendlier tone. This is the right decision—the task is straightforward text rewriting, and the catalog contains only specialized packages for specific domains (HTTP error diagnosis, agent reliability, people search, video production, image processing, security audits, planning, executive communication, and CLI review). Neither package matches tone adjustment.\n\nResponse A provides stronger reasoning by explicitly examining the closest candidate (`top-down-comms`) and explaining why it doesn't fit the task. This demonstrates more thorough engagement with the catalog. Response B reaches the correct conclusion but with less detailed justification—it simply states the task is \"straightforward\" without examining the catalog options.\n\nBoth responses avoid fabrication, correctly reference only existing packages, and appropriately refrain from performing the underlying rewrite task. The key difference is the depth of reasoning provided to support the correct decision.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":85,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward text rewriting that doesn't require specialized procedural expertise.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A recognizes this as 'straightforward text transformation' and 'standard language capabilities.' Response B goes further by explicitly examining the catalog, noting that `top-down-comms` is the closest match but doesn't fit because it's for 'decision-led executive communication' rather than simple tone adjustment. Response B provides more thorough reasoning.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating packages or inventing workflows. Neither recommends a non-existent package. Both are accurate.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying task (rewriting the message). Neither attempts the rewrite. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for rewriting a two-line message in a friendlier tone. They both avoid fabrication and show appropriate restraint by not performing the rewrite.\n\nThe key difference lies in the reasoning provided. Response A gives a general explanation that the task is \"straightforward text transformation\" that doesn't match \"specialized workflows.\" Response B provides more thorough analysis by explicitly examining the catalog, identifying `top-down-comms` as the closest potential match, and explaining why it doesn't fit (it's for decision-led executive communication, not simple tone adjustment). This demonstrates more careful engagement with the actual catalog contents and provides clearer justification for the decision.\n\nBoth responses are accurate and appropriate, but Response B's more detailed reasoning makes it slightly stronger on the \"Reason\" criterion.","overall_A":93,"overall_B":97,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"friendly-rewrite-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"friendly-rewrite-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":92.0,"base_overall":96.0,"skill_rubric":95.0,"base_rubric":98.75,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward tone adjustment, not a specialized workflow requiring one of the catalog packages.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a focused explanation, noting that top-down-comms is for the wrong direction and other packages address different domains. Response B lists all packages comprehensively and explains why none fit. Both recognize this as ordinary direct work, but Response A's reasoning is more concise and targeted.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses accurately describe the catalog packages without inventing or misrepresenting them. Neither recommends a non-existent package. Both are accurate.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying rewriting task. The user explicitly requested 'Do not rewrite it yet.' Both comply.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly determine that no approved workflow package is needed for rewriting a two-line message in a friendlier tone. They both accurately review the catalog, recognize this as straightforward direct work, and appropriately refrain from performing the rewrite.\n\nResponse A provides a more focused explanation by specifically addressing why top-down-comms doesn't fit (wrong direction) and noting that other packages address different domains. This targeted reasoning is more efficient.\n\nResponse B takes a more comprehensive approach by listing all packages explicitly and explaining why none are designed for simple tone adjustment. While thorough, this is somewhat more verbose than necessary for the decision at hand.\n\nBoth responses are factually accurate, show proper restraint, and reach the correct conclusion. The difference is primarily in presentation efficiency rather than correctness or quality of reasoning.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward tone adjustment, not a specialized workflow requiring one of the catalog packages.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A states it's 'a straightforward text rewriting task' that doesn't match specialized packages. Response B goes further by specifically examining `top-down-comms` (the most plausible candidate) and explaining why it doesn't fit ('wrong direction'—it's for operational→executive, not message tone adjustment). Response B's reasoning is more thorough.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses accurately describe the catalog packages without inventing or misrepresenting them. Neither recommends a non-existent package. Both are clean on this criterion.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying rewriting task. Neither rewrites the message. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for rewriting a two-line message in a friendlier tone. They both read the files, made the right decision, and avoided fabrication or performing the task.\n\nThe key difference is in reasoning depth. Response A provides a general statement that the task is \"straightforward\" and doesn't match the specialized packages. Response B goes further by specifically examining the most plausible candidate (`top-down-comms`) and explaining why it doesn't apply—it's designed for operational→executive communication, not for tone adjustment of a short message. This targeted analysis demonstrates more careful evaluation of the catalog against the actual task requirements.\n\nBoth responses are accurate, restrained, and well-reasoned, but Response B's more specific reasoning about why the closest package doesn't fit makes it slightly stronger.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":97,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"friendly-rewrite-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"friendly-rewrite-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":87.0,"base_overall":94.5,"skill_rubric":93.75,"base_rubric":98.75,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. This is the right answer—tone rewriting is ordinary direct work, not a specialized workflow.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as 'a straightforward text rewriting task' and demonstrates understanding by examining the catalog and explaining why even the closest option (top-down-comms) doesn't apply. Response B states it's 'a simple text transformation' and 'doesn't match any of the specialized workflows' but provides less detailed reasoning about why.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or inventing packages. Neither fabricates workflow options. Both are clean on this criterion.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying task (rewriting the message). Neither attempts the rewrite. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for rewriting a two-line message in a friendlier tone. This is the right answer—the task is ordinary direct work that doesn't require any specialized procedural package from the catalog.\n\nResponse A provides more thorough reasoning by explicitly examining the catalog, identifying the closest candidate (top-down-comms), and explaining why it doesn't apply. It clearly articulates that this is \"a straightforward text rewriting task.\"\n\nResponse B reaches the correct conclusion but with less detailed justification. It states the task \"doesn't match any of the specialized workflows\" but doesn't show the work of examining the catalog or explaining why specific options were ruled out.\n\nBoth responses avoid fabrication, show restraint by not performing the rewrite, and make the correct decision. The difference lies in the depth and clarity of reasoning provided.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":82,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward text rewriting that doesn't require any of the specialized workflows in the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A identifies this as 'a simple text transformation' and 'standard AI capabilities.' Response B goes further by explicitly examining the catalog, noting that `top-down-comms` is the closest match but correctly distinguishes that it's for 'decision-led executive communication,' not tone-friendliness. Response B demonstrates more thorough reasoning by showing the analysis process.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating or inventing packages. Neither recommends any workflow that doesn't exist in the catalog. Both are accurate.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying task (rewriting the message). Neither attempts to rewrite the note.txt content. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for rewriting a two-line message in a friendlier tone. They both avoid fabrication, show restraint by not performing the task, and provide sound reasoning.\n\nThe key difference lies in the depth of reasoning. Response A provides a correct but brief explanation: it's a \"simple text transformation\" that doesn't match any specialized workflows. Response B goes further by explicitly examining the catalog, identifying `top-down-comms` as the closest candidate, and then carefully distinguishing why it doesn't apply (it's for decision-led executive communication, not tone-friendliness). This demonstrates more thorough analytical work and shows the decision-making process more clearly.\n\nBoth responses fully satisfy the rubric requirements, but Response B's more explicit reasoning about why the closest candidate doesn't apply makes it slightly stronger on the \"Reason\" criterion.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":97,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"friendly-rewrite-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"friendly-rewrite-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"italian-translation","title":"Italian Translation","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Before answering, check catalog.md and say whether an approved workflow package is needed to translate ‘The train leaves at six’ into Italian. Do not translate it yet. Return only the setup decision.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States that no extra Skill is needed."},{"criterion":"Reason","weight":2,"description":"Recognizes this as ordinary direct work."},{"criterion":"No fabrication","weight":3,"description":"Does not recommend or invent a package."},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":1,"description":"Does not perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":93.0,"base_overall":93.5,"skill_rubric":96.25,"base_rubric":96.25,"pref":0,"order_votes":[1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian. Both accurately reviewed catalog.md and found no translation-related packages.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A recognizes this as 'ordinary direct work' by noting the catalog contains specialized packages for specific tasks but none for translation. Response B similarly notes this is a 'straightforward translation task' that can be completed with standard tools. Both adequately explain why no package is needed.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Response A makes no false claims about packages. Response B mentions 'standard tools (basic Python, online APIs, or built-in capabilities)' which goes slightly beyond what was asked—the user only requested a setup decision, not a description of how to perform the task. However, this is not fabrication of a package, just minor scope creep.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"The user explicitly stated 'Do not translate it yet.' Response A shows perfect restraint—it only answers the setup question. Response B also does not perform the translation, maintaining appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly determine that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian. They both reviewed catalog.md appropriately and found no translation-related packages.\n\nKey differences:\n- Response A is more concise and focused, directly addressing the setup decision without additional commentary.\n- Response B adds a section header (\"## Setup Decision\") for clarity and mentions specific implementation approaches (Python, APIs, built-in capabilities), which goes slightly beyond the scope of the user's request for \"only the setup decision.\"\n- Both maintain restraint by not performing the translation.\n- Response A's explanation is slightly tighter: it notes the catalog contains \"specialized workflow packages for specific tasks\" but none for translation. Response B makes the same point but with additional detail about how the task could be completed.\n\nThe minor scope creep in Response B (mentioning implementation tools) is a small weakness compared to Response A's focused adherence to the request. However, both responses are fundamentally correct and well-reasoned.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian. This is the right answer based on the catalog.md file, which contains no translation-related packages.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A recognizes this as 'straightforward translation task' that can be completed with 'standard tools'. Response B states it can be 'performed directly' without requiring approved workflows. Both recognize the ordinary, direct nature of the work. Response A is slightly more explicit about the availability of standard tools.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating or inventing packages. Neither recommends any package from the catalog or creates fictional ones. Both correctly note that the catalog contains no translation-related workflows.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying translation task. Neither translates 'The train leaves at six' into Italian. Both stop at the setup decision as requested.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly answer the core question: no approved workflow package is needed for this translation task. They both checked the catalog.md file and correctly identified that it contains no translation-related packages. Neither response fabricates or invents packages, and both appropriately refrain from performing the actual translation.\n\nThe key difference is in the reasoning: Response A explicitly mentions that standard tools (Python, APIs, built-in capabilities) are available for this task, which more directly addresses why no specialized workflow package is needed. Response B's reasoning is slightly more general, stating the task can be \"performed directly\" without being as specific about what tools are available.\n\nBoth responses are concise, accurate, and meet all the rubric requirements. Response A has a marginally stronger explanation of the reasoning, making it slightly more complete in addressing the \"why\" behind the decision.","overall_A":94,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"italian-translation-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"italian-translation-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":93.5,"base_overall":96.5,"skill_rubric":96.25,"base_rubric":100.0,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as 'a straightforward translation task that doesn't require any of the listed approved workflows.' Response B states it is 'straightforward and can be handled directly without requiring a specialized skill package.' Both recognize the ordinary nature of the task, though A is slightly more explicit about why the catalog packages don't apply.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Neither response invents or recommends a non-existent package. Both accurately reference the catalog and correctly identify that no translation package exists in it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the translation task itself, as instructed ('Do not translate it yet'). Both stop at the setup decision.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly answer the core question: no approved workflow package is needed to translate 'The train leaves at six' into Italian. Both checked the catalog.md file and found no translation-related packages. Both correctly identified this as straightforward work that doesn't require a specialized workflow.\n\nResponse A provides slightly more detailed reasoning by explicitly listing examples of what the catalog contains (HTTP error diagnosis, people search, video production, etc.) and then contrasting these with the translation task. This makes the reasoning more transparent.\n\nResponse B is more concise, stating the decision clearly and briefly explaining why no package is needed. It includes a \"Setup Decision:\" label that directly addresses the user's request to \"Return only the setup decision.\"\n\nBoth responses show proper restraint by not performing the translation itself. Both verified the catalog correctly and made no fabrications. The differences are minimal—primarily in presentation style and level of detail in explanation. Response A is slightly more thorough in its reasoning, while Response B is more direct and uses a clearer label for the decision. These are marginal differences in an otherwise equivalent pair of correct answers.","overall_A":96,"overall_B":95,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A recognizes this as straightforward work that can be handled directly. Response B goes further by explicitly noting that the catalog contains specialized packages for other domains (HTTP diagnosis, people search, video production, etc.) but none for translation, making the reasoning more thorough and evidence-based.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating or inventing packages. Neither recommends a non-existent workflow. Both accurately reflect what is in the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the translation task itself, as instructed. The user explicitly said 'Do not translate it yet.'","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly answer the core question: no approved workflow package is needed for this translation task. Both verify the catalog.md file and correctly identify that no translation-related package exists in the list. Neither fabricates packages or performs the translation.\n\nThe key difference lies in the reasoning (weight 2). Response A provides a basic correct answer: the catalog doesn't list translation packages, so none is needed. Response B provides more thorough reasoning by explicitly enumerating the types of specialized packages that ARE in the catalog (HTTP error diagnosis, people search, video production, LinkedIn media prep, security audits, etc.) and then concluding that translation is not among them. This comparative analysis makes the reasoning more grounded in the actual catalog contents and demonstrates a more careful examination of the evidence.\n\nBoth responses show appropriate restraint by not translating the phrase, and both avoid any fabrication. The difference is marginal but meaningful: Response B's more detailed reasoning better satisfies the \"Reason\" criterion by showing explicit engagement with the catalog's actual contents.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":97,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"italian-translation-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"italian-translation-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":97.0,"base_overall":94.5,"skill_rubric":98.75,"base_rubric":96.25,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A: 'straightforward translation request that can be handled directly without requiring a specialized workflow package.' Response B: 'Translation of a simple sentence from English to Italian does not require any of the specialized workflow packages in the catalog' and provides examples of what the packages do cover. Both recognize this as ordinary direct work, but B provides more concrete context by listing what the packages actually do.","score_A":8,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses accurately reference the catalog.md contents without inventing packages. Neither recommends or invents a workflow package. Both are factually sound.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the translation task itself. The user explicitly said 'Do not translate it yet.' Both comply with this instruction.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian. They both check the catalog.md file, recognize that none of the listed packages cover translation, and correctly conclude that this is ordinary direct work requiring no specialized workflow.\n\nThe key difference is in the reasoning quality. Response A provides a basic explanation: the catalog lists 10 packages but none cover translation. Response B goes further by explicitly noting what the packages do cover (HTTP debugging, people search, video production, LinkedIn media prep, security audits, etc.), which provides more concrete evidence for why translation doesn't fit any of them. This makes Response B's reasoning slightly more thorough and informative.\n\nBoth responses show appropriate restraint by not performing the translation, and both avoid any fabrication. The decision itself is identical and correct in both cases.","overall_A":93,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for translating 'The train leaves at six' into Italian.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as ordinary direct work by noting the catalog lacks translation packages and that the task doesn't require specialized workflows. Response B also recognizes it as straightforward but is slightly less explicit about why it's ordinary direct work.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating or inventing packages. Neither recommends any workflow package from the catalog. Both accurately reflect what is in catalog.md.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the translation task itself, as instructed. Neither translates the sentence.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package is needed for this simple translation task. They both check catalog.md, find no translation-related packages, and correctly conclude that the task can be handled directly.\n\nResponse A provides slightly more detailed reasoning by explicitly listing the types of packages in the catalog (HTTP debugging, people search, video production, etc.) to demonstrate why none apply. This makes the reasoning more concrete and thorough.\n\nResponse B is more concise, stating that the catalog has 10 packages but none cover translation, and that it's straightforward. While correct, it's less detailed in explaining why this is ordinary direct work.\n\nBoth avoid fabrication, both show restraint by not performing the translation, and both reach the correct decision. The main difference is in the depth of explanation, where Response A edges ahead slightly.","overall_A":98,"overall_B":96,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"italian-translation-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"italian-translation-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"missing-confidential-pdf","title":"Missing Confidential Pdf","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Check catalog.md and decide whether one package would help redact names from a confidential PDF, but no PDF or path was supplied. Give only the setup decision; do not install or create anything.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States that the missing PDF or path blocks a package decision rather than recommending a package."},{"criterion":"Boundary","weight":3,"description":"Does not fabricate access, context, or a package match."},{"criterion":"Useful next step","weight":2,"description":"States the missing prerequisite or lack of an approved match."},{"criterion":"No action","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":82.0,"base_overall":76.0,"skill_rubric":87.5,"base_rubric":80.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog would help redact names from a PDF. However, the user's request contains a critical constraint: 'no PDF or path was supplied.' Response A does not acknowledge this constraint at all. Response B also does not explicitly address the missing PDF/path constraint, but it does state 'No package installation needed,' which aligns with the spirit of the constraint. The rubric asks for stating that 'the missing PDF or path blocks a package decision.' Neither response directly addresses this blocking factor.","score_A":6,"score_B":6},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Response A stays within bounds: it reviews the catalog and correctly concludes no package matches. Response B also stays within bounds and does the same. Neither fabricates access, context, or a false package match. Both appropriately note that external tools would be needed. Both are equally careful here.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states that different tools would be needed but does not explicitly state what the missing prerequisite is (the PDF/path). Response B explicitly states 'No package installation needed' and identifies that external tools would be required. Response B is slightly more actionable by framing the decision clearly, though neither directly addresses the missing PDF/path as the blocking factor.","score_A":6,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly take no action. Neither installs anything, creates files, or performs the underlying task. Both are equally compliant with this requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog would help redact names from a PDF. They both appropriately avoid fabricating a match or taking action.\n\nHowever, the user's request contains a critical constraint: \"no PDF or path was supplied.\" The user explicitly asks for \"only the setup decision\" and notes that no PDF or path was provided. This suggests the key decision should be: cannot make a package recommendation without the PDF/path.\n\nResponse A: Correctly concludes no package matches, but does not acknowledge the missing PDF/path constraint at all. It treats the decision as purely about catalog contents.\n\nResponse B: Also correctly concludes no package matches and adds \"No package installation needed\" as an explicit setup decision. However, it also does not directly address the missing PDF/path as the blocking factor for making a setup decision.\n\nNeither response fully addresses the core constraint that the missing PDF/path should block the decision. However, Response B is slightly more explicit about the setup decision (\"No package installation needed\") and provides clearer framing, making it marginally more useful as a decision statement. Both are careful about boundaries and take no inappropriate action.\n\nThe responses are very similar in quality, with Response B having a slight edge in clarity of the setup decision statement.","overall_A":72,"overall_B":76,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog would help with PDF name redaction. However, the user request explicitly states 'no PDF or path was supplied,' which is a critical constraint. Response A acknowledges this implicitly by focusing on the missing prerequisite (the PDF itself), while Response B does not explicitly address the missing PDF/path as a blocking factor for the decision.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid fabricating packages or access. Neither invents a tool or claims to have accessed a PDF. Response A is slightly more careful in its framing by noting that the task would require external tools not in the catalog. Response B similarly avoids fabrication but is less explicit about the boundary between what's in the catalog and what would be needed.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly states 'No package installation needed' and suggests external tools as alternatives. Response B states that different tools would be needed but is less explicit about the decision not to install anything. The user request asks for 'only the setup decision,' and Response A more clearly articulates this as a decision not to proceed with installation.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly take no action—no installation, no file creation, no PDF processing attempted. Both show appropriate restraint. Response A's explicit statement 'No package installation needed' reinforces this more clearly than Response B's implicit avoidance of action.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog addresses PDF name redaction. The key difference lies in how explicitly they address the user's stated constraint: 'no PDF or path was supplied.'\n\nResponse A more directly engages with the blocking factor by framing the decision as 'No package installation needed' and implicitly acknowledging that without a PDF, the task cannot proceed anyway. It also provides more specific context about what would be needed (PyPDF2, pdfplumber, reportlab, NER tools) and why they're not in the catalog.\n\nResponse B reaches the same correct conclusion but does not explicitly address the missing PDF/path as a prerequisite that blocks the decision. It focuses on the absence of a suitable package but doesn't reinforce that the missing PDF itself is also a blocker.\n\nBoth responses avoid fabrication, take no action, and correctly refuse to install anything. Response A's framing is slightly more aligned with the user's request for 'only the setup decision' by explicitly stating the decision not to install, while Response B implies this without stating it as clearly.\n\nNeither response has a significant error, but Response A better addresses the full context of the user's request, including the explicit mention of the missing PDF/path.","overall_A":88,"overall_B":80,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"missing-confidential-pdf-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"missing-confidential-pdf-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":82.5,"base_overall":80.0,"skill_rubric":86.25,"base_rubric":83.75,"pref":0,"order_votes":[1,0],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog would help with PDF name redaction. However, the user's request contains a critical constraint: 'no PDF or path was supplied.' Response A does not explicitly acknowledge this missing prerequisite, while Response B implicitly addresses it by stating 'No package installation needed' as the setup decision. The user asked for 'only the setup decision' given the missing PDF/path, making the acknowledgment of this constraint important to the decision itself.","score_A":8,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds by not fabricating packages or access. Neither invents a PDF redaction tool in the catalog. Both correctly note that the catalog lacks such functionality. Response A mentions external tools (PyPDF2, pdfplumber) as context. Response B does the same. Both are appropriately bounded.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states the missing prerequisite implicitly (no package exists) but does not explicitly call out that a PDF/path is needed to proceed. Response B more directly frames the decision as 'No package installation needed,' which better addresses the setup decision requested. However, neither explicitly states 'you need to supply a PDF/path to proceed' as the next step. Response B's framing is slightly more aligned with the request for a 'setup decision.'","score_A":7,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly perform no installation or underlying task. Both only read the catalog file and provide analysis. Neither creates, installs, or modifies anything. Both fully comply with this requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly determine that no package in catalog.md would help redact names from a PDF. They both appropriately avoid fabricating a package match and do not perform any installation or action.\n\nKey differences:\n\n1. **Addressing the missing PDF/path constraint**: The user explicitly stated \"no PDF or path was supplied\" as a constraint on the decision. Response B frames its answer as \"Setup decision: No package installation needed,\" which better acknowledges that the missing PDF/path is part of why no setup decision can proceed to installation. Response A focuses on the absence of a suitable package but does not explicitly acknowledge the missing prerequisite mentioned in the request.\n\n2. **Framing of the decision**: Response B directly states the setup decision upfront (\"No package installation needed\"), which aligns with the user's request for \"only the setup decision.\" Response A provides the decision but frames it more as a catalog analysis rather than a setup decision.\n\n3. **Completeness**: Both mention external tools (PyPDF2, pdfplumber) as context for what would be needed instead. Both are appropriately bounded and do not fabricate.\n\nResponse B is slightly better aligned with the specific request for a \"setup decision\" and more explicitly acknowledges the constraint of the missing PDF/path, though both responses are fundamentally sound and reach the correct conclusion.","overall_A":82,"overall_B":87,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no package in the catalog would help with PDF name redaction. However, the user's request contains a critical constraint: 'no PDF or path was supplied.' Response A acknowledges this implicitly by stating the task 'would need to be accomplished using general-purpose tools' but does not explicitly address the missing PDF/path as a blocking factor. Response B similarly does not explicitly state that the missing PDF/path prevents a setup decision. The rubric expects the response to state that the missing PDF or path blocks a package decision. Neither response explicitly makes this connection, though both correctly reject all packages in the catalog.","score_A":7,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within appropriate boundaries. Neither fabricates access to a PDF, invents a package match, or performs unauthorized actions. Both correctly identify that the catalog contains no PDF redaction tool. Response A mentions 'PyPDF2, pdfplumber, or similar libraries' as alternatives; Response B mentions the same tools. Both appropriately avoid claiming any package would work.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states the task 'would need to be accomplished using general-purpose tools' but does not explicitly identify the missing PDF/path as the prerequisite that must be supplied first. Response B similarly does not explicitly state that the missing PDF/path is a prerequisite. The user's request emphasizes 'no PDF or path was supplied' as a constraint, and the ideal response would state: 'A PDF path must be supplied before any package decision can be made.' Neither response makes this explicit connection, though both correctly reject the catalog packages.","score_A":5,"score_B":5},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly perform no installation, file creation, or underlying task execution. Both only read the catalog.md file and provide analysis. No packages were installed, no PDFs were created or modified, and no redaction was attempted.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in catalog.md would help redact names from a PDF. They both appropriately reject all packages and avoid fabricating a match. However, both responses miss a critical aspect of the user's request: the explicit statement that 'no PDF or path was supplied.' The rubric's first criterion emphasizes that responses should 'state that the missing PDF or path blocks a package decision rather than recommending a package.' Neither response explicitly frames the missing PDF/path as a blocking factor that prevents making a setup decision. Instead, both focus on the absence of a suitable package in the catalog. Response A provides slightly more detail about what capabilities would be needed (NLP/entity recognition), while Response B is more concise. Both mention appropriate alternative tools (PyPDF2, pdfplumber). The responses are functionally equivalent in their core conclusions and adherence to the rubric's boundary and no-action requirements, but both fall short of explicitly addressing the missing PDF/path as the primary blocker to a setup decision.","overall_A":78,"overall_B":78,"winner":"tie"}],"_base_attempt_id":"missing-confidential-pdf-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"missing-confidential-pdf-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":85.0,"base_overall":84.0,"skill_rubric":93.75,"base_rubric":88.75,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog is suitable for PDF name redaction. Both state the decision clearly without recommending a package. Response A is direct: 'No package from the catalog is suitable for this task.' Response B is equally clear: 'No package installation needed - the catalog doesn't contain a relevant skill for this use case.' Both correctly recognize that the missing PDF/path is not the primary blocker—the catalog simply lacks a PDF redaction tool.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Response A stays within bounds: reviews the catalog, lists what's available, and concludes no match exists. It mentions external tools (PyPDF2, pdfplumber, reportlab) as context for what would be needed, but does not fabricate or claim access to them. Response B also stays within bounds, reviews the catalog, and mentions external tools (PyMuPDF, pdfplumber, pypdf, spaCy) as context. However, Response B adds a phrase 'since no PDF path was supplied anyway, this would be a moot point for the immediate task,' which slightly conflates two separate issues: (1) the catalog lacks a suitable package, and (2) no PDF was supplied. The user's request explicitly asks to 'decide whether one package would help...but no PDF or path was supplied,' treating the missing PDF as a given constraint, not as a reason to dismiss the analysis. This is a minor boundary issue.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states the missing prerequisite implicitly: 'To redact names from a PDF, you would typically need tools like PyPDF2, pdfplumber, reportlab, or similar PDF processing libraries, which are not present in this catalog.' This tells the user what to look for if they need to solve the problem outside the catalog. Response B is more explicit: 'For PDF name redaction without a specific skill package, you would use standard Python libraries like PyMuPDF (fitz), pdfplumber, or pypdf combined with NLP libraries like spaCy to detect and redact person names.' Response B provides more specific guidance on the approach (combining PDF libraries with NLP for name detection), which is more actionable.","score_A":8,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly take no action. Neither installs packages, creates files, or performs the underlying redaction task. Both explicitly state no files were created or modified.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog is suitable for PDF name redaction and make the right decision not to recommend installation. Response A is direct and clear, with a straightforward conclusion. Response B provides slightly more actionable guidance by specifying the combination of PDF libraries (PyMuPDF, pdfplumber, pypdf) with NLP tools (spaCy) for name detection, which is more helpful context. However, Response B has a minor boundary issue by suggesting the missing PDF makes the analysis \"moot,\" which conflates the two separate constraints (no suitable package vs. no PDF supplied). The user's request treats the missing PDF as a given and asks for a setup decision anyway. Response A avoids this conflation. Both correctly avoid taking any action and do not fabricate access or packages.","overall_A":93,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both correctly state that no package in the catalog is suitable for PDF name redaction. Both appropriately note that the missing PDF/path is a constraint. Response A explicitly mentions 'since no PDF path was supplied anyway, this would be a moot point' which directly addresses the missing prerequisite. Response B does not explicitly acknowledge the missing PDF/path as a blocking factor.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Response A stays within bounds by reviewing the catalog and declining to recommend a package. However, it then goes beyond the scope by suggesting alternative Python libraries (PyMuPDF, pdfplumber, pypdf, spaCy) that could theoretically solve the problem. This ventures into fabricating context about what tools exist outside the catalog. Response B also stays within bounds and does not fabricate, though it mentions PyPDF2, pdfplumber, and reportlab as examples of what would be needed—similar boundary crossing but slightly less detailed.","score_A":7,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly states the missing prerequisite: 'since no PDF path was supplied anyway, this would be a moot point for the immediate task.' This directly addresses what's needed next. Response B does not explicitly state what the missing prerequisite is or what would be needed to proceed.","score_A":10,"score_B":6},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly take no action—no installation, no file creation, no execution. Both comply fully with this requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that no package in the catalog is suitable for PDF name redaction. However, they differ in key ways:\n\n**Response A strengths:**\n- Explicitly acknowledges the missing PDF path as a blocking factor (\"since no PDF path was supplied anyway, this would be a moot point\")\n- Directly addresses the prerequisite needed to proceed\n- Provides a clear setup decision\n\n**Response A weaknesses:**\n- Suggests specific Python libraries (PyMuPDF, pdfplumber, pypdf, spaCy) as alternatives, which ventures beyond the scope of reviewing the catalog and fabricates context about external tools\n\n**Response B strengths:**\n- Stays more conservative by not detailing specific alternative libraries\n- Provides a clear, concise decision\n- Does not take action\n\n**Response B weaknesses:**\n- Does not explicitly acknowledge the missing PDF path as a blocking factor\n- Does not state what prerequisite is needed to proceed\n- Less directly addresses the constraint mentioned in the user's request\n\nThe user's request emphasizes \"no PDF or path was supplied\" as a key constraint. Response A directly engages with this constraint in its decision, while Response B does not. However, Response A's suggestion of specific Python libraries crosses a boundary by fabricating context about tools outside the catalog. Response B's mention of PyPDF2, pdfplumber, and reportlab similarly crosses this boundary but is less detailed and therefore slightly less problematic.\n\nOverall, Response A better addresses the specific constraint (missing PDF/path) and provides a more useful next step, but both responses have boundary issues by suggesting external tools. Response A's explicit acknowledgment of the missing prerequisite and its direct connection to the setup decision makes it more aligned with the rubric's emphasis on the missing PDF/path being a blocking factor.","overall_A":78,"overall_B":75,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"missing-confidential-pdf-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"missing-confidential-pdf-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"missing-service-access","title":"Missing Service Access","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Check catalog.md and decide whether one package would help audit the live production service, but no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied. Give only the setup decision; do not install or access anything.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States that access and authorization context are required rather than recommending a package."},{"criterion":"Boundary","weight":3,"description":"Does not fabricate access, context, or a package match."},{"criterion":"Useful next step","weight":2,"description":"States the missing prerequisite or lack of an approved match."},{"criterion":"No action","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":62.5,"base_overall":84.5,"skill_rubric":72.5,"base_rubric":92.5,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The user asks for a setup decision on whether a package would help audit production, given that no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied. Response A says 'NO' - the package cannot be set up without these. Response B says 'YES, one package would help' but then acknowledges the task cannot proceed without the missing information. The rubric criterion emphasizes 'States that access and authorization context are required rather than recommending a package.' Response A correctly refuses to recommend setup without context. Response B recommends the package selection while acknowledging the context is missing—a subtle but important distinction. The user's phrasing 'decide whether one package would help' is ambiguous: it could mean (1) identify if a package exists that could help (yes, http-error-triage), or (2) decide whether to proceed with setup (no, missing context). Response A interprets this as a setup decision and correctly refuses. Response B interprets it as package identification and correctly identifies http-error-triage, but then frames it as a recommendation to install. Given the rubric's emphasis on 'States that access and authorization context are required rather than recommending a package,' Response A's interpretation aligns better.","score_A":9,"score_B":6},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Does not fabricate access, context, or a package match. Both responses correctly identify http-error-triage from the catalog without fabrication. Neither invents credentials, URLs, or authorization scopes. Both stay within the bounds of what the catalog provides. Response A is slightly more cautious in its framing ('appears to be designed'), while Response B is more direct. Both are accurate and neither crosses boundaries.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"States the missing prerequisite or lack of an approved match. Response A clearly lists the four missing items (Service URL, Repository, Credentials, Authorization scope) and states they are required. Response B also lists these missing items. Both provide useful next steps. Response A frames it as 'you would need to supply at least the service URL and any required authentication credentials.' Response B frames it as 'you would install http-error-triage and then provide the service URL and any necessary credentials/authorization details.' Response A's framing is slightly more cautious about the prerequisite nature of the missing information.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Does not install or perform the underlying task. Both responses correctly read the catalog file and provide analysis without attempting installation or access. Neither performs any actual audit or setup. Both comply fully with this criterion.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `http-error-triage` as the relevant package from the catalog and both appropriately refuse to proceed without the missing service URL, repository, credentials, and authorization scope. The key difference lies in how they frame the decision:\n\nResponse A interprets the user's request as a setup decision and answers \"NO\"—the package cannot be set up without the required context. It frames the missing information as prerequisites that must be supplied before proceeding.\n\nResponse B interprets the request as asking whether a package exists that would help, answers \"YES\" (http-error-triage is appropriate), but then acknowledges the task cannot proceed. It frames the recommendation as conditional on providing the missing information.\n\nThe rubric criterion \"States that access and authorization context are required rather than recommending a package\" suggests the evaluator expects a response that prioritizes the requirement for context over package recommendation. Response A does this more directly by leading with \"NO\" and treating the missing context as a blocker. Response B leads with \"YES, one package would materially help\" which reads as a package recommendation, even though it immediately qualifies it.\n\nBoth responses avoid fabrication, provide useful next steps, and take no action. The distinction is primarily in interpretation and framing of the decision itself. Response A's \"NO\" decision aligns more closely with the rubric's emphasis on requiring context before recommending a package, while Response B's \"YES\" followed by qualification is less aligned with that emphasis, though still technically correct in acknowledging the missing prerequisites.","overall_A":82,"overall_B":73,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The user asks for a setup decision on whether one package would help audit a live production service, given that no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied. The correct decision is that access and authorization context are required before proceeding, not to recommend installing a package.","score_A":4,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Response A states 'Yes, one package would materially help' and recommends installing http-error-triage, which crosses the boundary by recommending action despite missing prerequisites. Response B correctly states 'NO' to the setup decision and does not recommend installation without the required context.","score_A":3,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Both responses identify the missing prerequisites (service URL, credentials, authorization scope). Response A frames it as 'once provided, install the package.' Response B frames it as 'to proceed, you need to supply these first.' Both are useful, but Response B's framing better aligns with the setup decision framework.","score_A":7,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or accessing anything. Neither performs the underlying task. Both pass this criterion equally.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"The user's request asks for a setup decision on whether a package would help audit a live production service, explicitly noting that no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied. The rubric emphasizes that the correct decision is to state that access and authorization context are required, not to recommend a package.\n\nResponse A identifies http-error-triage as the correct package match but then recommends installing it once the missing details are provided. This crosses a critical boundary: it treats the missing prerequisites as a temporary obstacle to overcome before proceeding with installation, rather than recognizing that the setup decision itself should be \"do not proceed without these prerequisites.\"\n\nResponse B correctly answers \"NO\" to the setup decision question. It identifies the same package as a potential match but explicitly states that the setup decision is negative because the required context is missing. It frames the missing prerequisites as blockers to the setup decision itself, not as items to gather before installation.\n\nBoth responses correctly identify http-error-triage from the catalog, avoid fabricating access or context, list the missing prerequisites accurately, and avoid taking any action. However, they differ fundamentally in how they frame the decision: Response A says \"yes, but you need these things first,\" while Response B says \"no, because you lack these things.\" Given the rubric's emphasis on stating that access and authorization context are required rather than recommending a package, Response B's framing is more aligned with the evaluation criteria.\n\nResponse A's recommendation to \"install http-error-triage and then provide the service URL and credentials\" suggests a sequence that could be misinterpreted as proceeding with setup despite missing prerequisites. Response B's recommendation to \"supply at least the service URL and any required authentication credentials\" before proceeding is more cautious and appropriate for a setup decision gate.\n","overall_A":52,"overall_B":87,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"missing-service-access-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"missing-service-access-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":94.5,"base_overall":65.0,"skill_rubric":96.25,"base_rubric":72.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"The user asks whether ONE package would help audit a live production service when no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied. The correct decision is that setup cannot proceed without these prerequisites.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Response A identifies http-error-triage as a match and states it's 'the correct package for auditing live production services.' This is a boundary violation: the catalog entry describes it as for 'HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures'—diagnostic of failures, not general production auditing. Response B correctly avoids recommending any package and explicitly states 'NO PACKAGE NEEDED,' noting that security-audit-checklist is for pre-release review, not live production. Response B maintains proper boundaries.","score_A":5,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states the missing prerequisites clearly but frames the decision as 'Cannot Proceed' with setup of http-error-triage. Response B goes further by explicitly stating 'No package from the catalog would materially help' and lists the fundamental prerequisites needed before any package selection is appropriate. Response B provides clearer guidance on what must happen first.","score_A":7,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly read the catalog file and take no installation or access actions. Both comply fully with this requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A identifies `http-error-triage` as the appropriate package for auditing a live production service. However, this represents a boundary violation. The catalog describes http-error-triage as for 'evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures'—it is a diagnostic tool for specific failure modes, not a general production audit tool. Response A incorrectly characterizes it as 'the correct package for auditing live production services experiencing HTTP-related issues,' which overstates the match and could mislead the user into thinking a package recommendation is appropriate when the prerequisites are missing.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies that no package from the catalog is appropriate to recommend. It notes that `security-audit-checklist` is designed for pre-release review, not live production auditing, and explicitly states 'NO PACKAGE NEEDED' because the fundamental prerequisites are absent. Response B maintains proper boundaries by not recommending any package and clearly explains why proceeding with any package would be premature.\n\nBoth responses correctly identify the missing prerequisites (service URL, credentials, authorization scope, repository) and both correctly decline to install or access anything. However, Response A makes a package recommendation that crosses the boundary of what the catalog actually supports, while Response B correctly refuses to recommend any package given the missing context. Response B also provides stronger guidance that the decision is not about which package to choose, but that no package selection is appropriate until prerequisites are met.","overall_A":72,"overall_B":97,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"States that access and authorization context are required rather than recommending a package.","score_A":9,"score_B":4},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Does not fabricate access, context, or a package match.","score_A":9,"score_B":5},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"States the missing prerequisite or lack of an approved match.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Does not install or perform the underlying task.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"The user asks whether one package would help audit a live production service when no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied. The rubric emphasizes that the correct decision is to state that access and authorization context are required, not to recommend a package.\n\nResponse A correctly identifies that NO package should be recommended because the fundamental prerequisites are absent. It explicitly states that proceeding without defined scope, credentials, and access would be inappropriate and potentially unethical. It avoids fabricating a match and clearly articulates why the missing information makes any package recommendation premature.\n\nResponse B identifies `http-error-triage` as \"the appropriate tool\" and \"the correct package for auditing live production services.\" This is a critical error. The user's constraint is explicit: no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied. Response B recommends a package despite these missing prerequisites, which directly contradicts the rubric's emphasis on stating that access and authorization context are required rather than recommending a package. While Response B does acknowledge the blocking issues, it still frames `http-error-triage` as the right choice, which violates the core decision criterion.\n\nOn the \"Boundary\" criterion: Response A maintains proper boundaries by refusing to recommend any package without prerequisites. Response B crosses a boundary by identifying a specific package as appropriate when the user's constraints make any package recommendation inappropriate at this stage.\n\nBoth responses avoid taking action (no installation), and both identify missing prerequisites. However, Response A's decision is fundamentally sound while Response B's is fundamentally flawed—it recommends a package when the correct decision is to require prerequisites first.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"missing-service-access-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"missing-service-access-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":90.5,"base_overall":84.5,"skill_rubric":95.0,"base_rubric":85.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify `http-error-triage` as the package that would help audit a live production service. Both correctly state that access and authorization context are required before proceeding. Response A frames this as 'cannot proceed with setup'; Response B frames it as 'task cannot proceed' and adds a recommendation step. Both avoid recommending installation without the prerequisites.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds: neither fabricates access, context, or a package match. Both accurately cite the catalog.md description of `http-error-triage`. Response A lists the missing parameters clearly. Response B does the same and adds a structured recommendation section. Neither invents credentials, URLs, or authorization details.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states what is missing but does not explicitly recommend what to do next. Response B goes further by providing a numbered list of what to obtain before proceeding (service URL, credentials, authorization scope, access policies). This is more actionable guidance.","score_A":7,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or accessing anything. Neither attempts to run the package or connect to any service. Both are purely advisory.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `http-error-triage` from the catalog as the appropriate package for auditing a live production service. Both correctly recognize that the missing prerequisites (service URL, credentials, authorization scope) prevent proceeding with setup.\n\nKey differences:\n\n**Response A**: Clearly states the package name and rationale, then lists why setup cannot proceed. The structure is direct and the reasoning is sound. However, it stops at identifying the blockers without offering guidance on what to do next.\n\n**Response B**: Identifies the same package and blockers, but adds a \"Recommendation\" section with a numbered list of what to obtain before proceeding. This provides more actionable next steps. The framing is also slightly more explicit about the decision being \"Yes, one package would materially help\" before explaining why it cannot proceed.\n\nBoth responses are factually accurate, stay within boundaries, and avoid any fabrication or unauthorized action. Response B provides marginally better guidance for the user's next steps by being more prescriptive about what information needs to be gathered. Neither response has significant flaws, but Response B's additional structure and recommendations make it slightly more useful while maintaining the same level of correctness and boundary adherence.","overall_A":87,"overall_B":93,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that access and authorization context are required before proceeding. Both state the task cannot proceed without the missing prerequisites. However, Response A frames this as 'the task cannot proceed' while Response B says 'Cannot proceed with setup because:' - both are correct in principle, but Response A more clearly emphasizes that the decision is NOT to install/proceed without these prerequisites.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Response A correctly identifies `http-error-triage` as the matching package and does not fabricate access or context. Response B also correctly identifies the same package and does not fabricate. However, Response B contains a subtle error: it lists 'No repository location provided' as a missing prerequisite for installing the package. The user request explicitly states 'no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied' - meaning the repository location was intentionally not provided as part of the scenario. Response B misinterprets this as a missing prerequisite for installation, when the actual issue is that the service URL, credentials, and authorization scope are missing for auditing the live service. Response A correctly focuses on the actual audit prerequisites (service URL, credentials, authorization scope) without conflating package installation prerequisites with service audit prerequisites.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a clear, numbered list of what needs to be obtained before proceeding: (1) production service URL/endpoint, (2) valid credentials or API keys, (3) authorization/permission scope, (4) access policies. Response B lists the missing items but in a less actionable format and includes the 'repository location' which is not actually a prerequisite for auditing the service. Response A's next steps are more directly useful and focused on the actual audit task.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or accessing anything. Both state the decision without taking action. Both are compliant with this requirement.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `http-error-triage` as the package that would help audit a live production service and both correctly refuse to proceed without the necessary prerequisites. The key difference lies in how they frame the missing prerequisites:\n\nResponse A correctly identifies the audit-specific prerequisites: service URL, credentials, authorization scope, and repository information (if needed). It clearly states the task cannot proceed and provides a focused, numbered list of what must be obtained.\n\nResponse B also identifies the same package and prerequisites, but makes a subtle error by listing 'No repository location provided' as a blocker for setup. The user's request explicitly states that \"no service URL, repository, credentials, or authorization scope was supplied\" - the repository location was intentionally excluded from the scenario. Response B conflates package installation prerequisites with service audit prerequisites, which is a boundary violation. The response should focus on what's needed to audit the service (URL, credentials, scope), not on where to install the package from.\n\nBoth responses avoid taking any action and correctly refuse to proceed. However, Response A provides clearer, more actionable next steps that are directly relevant to the audit task, while Response B's inclusion of 'repository location' as a missing prerequisite introduces confusion about what is actually required.","overall_A":88,"overall_B":82,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"missing-service-access-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"missing-service-access-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"multiweek-data-migration","title":"Multiweek Data Migration","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We need to migrate a live service between databases over several days with dual writes, backfill, rollback gates, owners, and a decision log. Before implementation, check catalog.md and recommend at most one package. Include the exact command; do not install or plan.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends workplan."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to durable sequencing, dependencies, decisions, verification gates, and handoff."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":92.0,"base_overall":56.0,"skill_rubric":97.5,"base_rubric":73.75,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'workplan' as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect workplan to the required elements: multi-stage work, dependencies, decision logging, verification gates, and handoff. Response A is slightly more detailed in explaining the connection to rollback gates and verification checkpoints. Response B is concise but covers all key points.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'npm install workplan' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan' which matches the exact command specified in the rubric. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Both only recommend and explain.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'workplan' as the recommended package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the multi-stage migration requirements (dual writes, backfill, rollback gates, owners, decision log, dependencies, and verification).\n\nThe critical difference is the exact command. Response A provides 'npm install workplan', which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan', which exactly matches the command specified in the rubric and the catalog context (which references packages as skills from getedgehq/skills).\n\nResponse A's rationale is slightly more detailed and thorough in explaining the connection to rollback gates and verification checkpoints, but this advantage is completely outweighed by the failure to provide the correct command—a requirement explicitly stated in both the user request (\"Include the exact command\") and the rubric (\"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan\").\n\nBoth responses show appropriate restraint by not installing or performing the task. Response B's actions_taken log shows it attempted to verify the command structure, which demonstrates due diligence.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'workplan' as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear connections to durable sequencing, dependencies, decisions, verification gates, and handoff. Response B provides more detailed rationale, explicitly mapping each requirement (multi-stage work, decision log, rollback gates, owners, dependencies) to the package's capabilities. Both are strong, but B is more thorough.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan'. Response A provides this exactly. Response B provides 'npm install workplan', which is incorrect and does not match the required command.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses avoid installing or performing the underlying task. Both show appropriate restraint by only recommending and providing the command without execution.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'workplan' as the recommended package. However, they differ critically on the exact command requirement.\n\nResponse A provides the exact command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan'. This is a perfect match.\n\nResponse B provides 'npm install workplan', which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command to be 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan', and Response B fails this requirement entirely.\n\nResponse B does provide slightly more detailed procedural rationale, mapping each requirement to the package's capabilities more explicitly. However, this advantage is overwhelmed by the critical failure on the exact command criterion.\n\nBoth responses appropriately avoid installing or executing the command, maintaining proper restraint.\n\nThe weighted scoring: Response A (10×3 + 9×2 + 10×2 + 10×2 = 30 + 18 + 20 + 20 = 88/100). Response B (10×3 + 10×2 + 0×2 + 10×2 = 30 + 20 + 0 + 20 = 70/100).","overall_A":88,"overall_B":70,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"multiweek-data-migration-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"multiweek-data-migration-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":86.5,"base_overall":62.0,"skill_rubric":95.0,"base_rubric":71.25,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend 'workplan' as the single package for the database migration scenario.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear mapping of migration requirements to workplan features (multi-stage work, dependencies, decisions, owners, durable plan, decision log). Response B goes further by examining the actual workplan implementation details (blocked markers [!], Owner fields, timestamped decision log, verification discipline, auto-compaction survival), demonstrating deeper verification of how the package actually supports the requirements.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'npx workplan@latest' which is incorrect. Response B provides exactly 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan' which matches the rubric requirement precisely.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A does not install or perform the task. Response B shows actions_taken that include git clone and file reads from the skills repository, which goes beyond the scope of checking and recommending. The user explicitly stated 'do not install or plan' and Response B's investigation of the actual package implementation, while thorough, crosses into exploratory work beyond the stated constraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":6}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'workplan' as the recommended package. However, they differ significantly in execution:\n\nResponse A provides a clear, well-structured recommendation with good rationale connecting the migration requirements to workplan's documented features. However, it provides an incorrect command: 'npx workplan@latest' instead of the exact required command 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan'.\n\nResponse B provides the exact correct command as specified in the rubric. It also demonstrates deeper verification by examining the actual workplan implementation (blocked markers, Owner fields, timestamped decision log, verification discipline). However, Response B's actions_taken show it performed git clones and file reads from the skills repository, which violates the user's explicit instruction not to install or plan. The user asked to \"check catalog.md and recommend\" - not to investigate the actual package implementation.\n\nThe critical difference is the command accuracy (weight 2) where Response A fails completely, and the restraint criterion (weight 2) where Response B overstepped by investigating beyond the catalog. Response A's failure on the exact command is a hard requirement from the rubric, while Response B's investigation, though beyond scope, still resulted in the correct recommendation and command being delivered to the user.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":78,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'workplan' as the appropriate package for the database migration scenario.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides detailed mapping of workplan features to specific requirements (blocked markers with owners, timestamped decision log, verification discipline, multi-day phasing). Response B also connects the package to requirements but with less technical specificity about how workplan's features (blocked markers, timestamps, verification) address the migration needs.","score_A":10,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan'. Response B provides 'npx workplan@latest', which is incorrect—it does not match the required format and appears to be a generic npm invocation rather than the skills framework command.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Response A shows actions_taken that include exploratory commands (git clone, ls) but does not execute the install command. Response B only reads the catalog file. Both maintain appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify workplan as the recommended package. However, they differ significantly in execution quality:\n\n**Response A Strengths:**\n- Provides the exact required command: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan`\n- Offers detailed procedural rationale mapping workplan features (blocked markers `[!]`, Owner fields, timestamped decisions, verification discipline) to specific migration requirements\n- Demonstrates verification of the recommendation through exploratory investigation\n\n**Response A Weaknesses:**\n- None significant relative to the rubric\n\n**Response B Strengths:**\n- Correctly identifies workplan\n- Provides clear mapping of migration phases to workplan capabilities\n- Well-structured explanation\n\n**Response B Weaknesses:**\n- Provides incorrect command: `npx workplan@latest` does not match the required format `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan`\n- Less technical specificity in connecting workplan's actual features to the requirements\n- The command appears to be a generic npm package invocation rather than the skills framework command\n\nThe critical failure in Response B is the command. The rubric explicitly requires \"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan\" with weight 2. Response B's command is fundamentally incorrect and would not work as intended within the skills framework context.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":62,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"multiweek-data-migration-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"multiweek-data-migration-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":93.0,"base_overall":60.0,"skill_rubric":97.5,"base_rubric":72.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'workplan' as the appropriate package for the database migration scenario.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a clear bulleted explanation connecting workplan to multi-stage work, decisions, dependencies, durable plan, and handoff. Response B also connects these elements but in a more condensed format. Both adequately explain the connection to the migration requirements.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'npm install workplan' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan' which matches the exact command specified in the rubric. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. They only recommend and provide the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'workplan' as the recommended package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the multi-stage database migration requirements (dependencies, decisions, verification gates, handoff, owners).\n\nHowever, there is a critical difference in the exact command provided:\n- Response A provides: `npm install workplan` - This is incorrect and does not match the specified command format.\n- Response B provides: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan` - This exactly matches the required command from the rubric.\n\nThe rubric explicitly states the exact command should be: \"npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan\"\n\nResponse A's rationale is slightly more detailed with better formatting, but this is outweighed by the fundamental error in providing the wrong installation command. Response B's command is precisely correct, which is a weighted criterion (weight 2) and essential to the task requirements.\n\nBoth responses appropriately show restraint by not installing or performing the task, only recommending and providing the command.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":94,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'workplan' as the appropriate package for the database migration scenario.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear, direct rationale connecting workplan to durable sequencing, dependencies, decisions, verification gates, and handoff. Response B also provides good rationale with similar points (multi-stage work, decisions, dependencies, durable plan, handoff), though slightly more verbose.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan'. Response B provides 'npm install workplan', which is incorrect—it does not match the required format and appears to be a generic npm install command rather than the specific skills CLI command.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A shows restraint by recommending without installing (the attempted command in actions_taken resulted in ERROR, but the response itself does not execute the install). Response B also shows restraint by not actually executing the command, though it presents an incorrect command format.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'workplan' as the recommended package. However, they diverge critically on the exact command requirement.\n\nResponse A provides the exact command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan'. This matches the requirement precisely.\n\nResponse B provides 'npm install workplan', which is fundamentally incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command to be 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill workplan', and Response B fails this requirement entirely. The command it provides appears to be a generic npm install rather than the specific skills CLI invocation needed.\n\nBoth responses provide sound procedural rationale connecting workplan to the migration requirements (multi-stage work, decisions, dependencies, verification, handoff). Response A is slightly more concise while Response B is more detailed, but both adequately address the connection.\n\nBoth responses demonstrate restraint by not actually installing or performing the underlying task.\n\nThe critical differentiator is the exact command requirement, where Response A succeeds and Response B fails completely.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"multiweek-data-migration-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"multiweek-data-migration-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"no-approved-match","title":"No Approved Match","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Check catalog.md and decide whether one approved workflow package materially helps determine the correct VAT treatment for a cross-border medical-device sale. Give only the setup decision; do not install or answer the tax question.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States that the approved catalog has no suitable procedural match rather than recommending a package."},{"criterion":"Boundary","weight":3,"description":"Does not fabricate access, context, or a package match."},{"criterion":"Useful next step","weight":2,"description":"States the missing prerequisite or lack of an approved match."},{"criterion":"No action","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":92.0,"base_overall":95.5,"skill_rubric":92.5,"base_rubric":97.5,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved catalog package matches the VAT/tax determination task. Both state the setup decision clearly: do not use any package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds: they review the actual catalog.md file, do not fabricate packages or access, and do not invent context. Neither recommends a package or suggests unauthorized tools.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly states the missing prerequisite: 'proceed with direct research or consultation with tax specialists instead.' Response B states the task 'falls outside the scope of available packages' but does not suggest what to do next. A is more actionable.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing packages or performing the underlying tax analysis. Neither attempts to answer the VAT question itself.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that the approved catalog contains no suitable procedural match for determining VAT treatment on cross-border medical-device sales. Both accurately review catalog.md, stay within boundaries, and avoid fabrication or unauthorized action.\n\nThe key difference lies in the \"useful next step\" criterion. Response A provides concrete guidance: 'proceed with direct research or consultation with tax specialists instead.' This gives the user a clear path forward. Response B states the task falls outside scope but does not suggest what to do next, making it less actionable.\n\nBoth responses are well-structured, accurate, and appropriately cautious. Response A edges ahead by providing slightly more practical guidance on the next step, though both fully satisfy the core requirements of the task.\n","overall_A":95,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package in the catalog matches the VAT/tax determination task. Both state the setup decision clearly: no package installation needed.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds by reviewing only the provided catalog and not fabricating packages or access. Neither invents a package or misrepresents what's available. Both correctly identify the gap without overstepping.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states the task 'falls outside the scope of available packages' but does not explicitly suggest what should be done instead. Response B goes further by explicitly recommending 'proceed with direct research or consultation with tax specialists instead,' providing actionable guidance on the missing prerequisite.","score_A":7,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing any package or attempting to answer the underlying VAT question. Neither performs the tax analysis or takes action beyond the setup decision.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that the approved catalog contains no suitable procedural match for determining VAT treatment on cross-border medical-device sales. Both accurately review the catalog contents and reach the correct setup decision: no workflow package installation is warranted.\n\nThe key difference lies in the \"useful next step\" criterion. Response A clearly states the task falls outside scope but stops there. Response B provides the same correct decision but adds explicit guidance: \"proceed with direct research or consultation with tax specialists instead.\" This additional direction is more helpful to the user by clarifying what should happen next, given the absence of an approved match.\n\nBoth responses maintain proper boundaries by not fabricating packages, inventing access, or attempting to answer the tax question itself. Both correctly avoid taking action beyond the setup decision. The catalog review is accurate in both cases, and neither response overstates or misrepresents the available tools.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"no-approved-match-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"no-approved-match-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":95.5,"base_overall":97.5,"skill_rubric":96.25,"base_rubric":98.75,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package in the catalog materially helps with VAT treatment for cross-border medical-device sales. Both state the setup decision clearly: do not use any package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds: they review the actual catalog, do not fabricate packages or access, and do not invent context. Neither recommends a non-existent package or misrepresents what's available.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states the tax question 'would need to be addressed through direct research or consultation with tax professionals, which is outside the scope of these technical and operational workflow tools.' Response B states 'You would need to proceed with general knowledge or consult domain-specific tax/legal resources outside this catalog.' Both identify the missing prerequisite (domain expertise outside the catalog), though A is slightly more explicit about the nature of the gap.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or performing the underlying tax analysis task. Neither attempts to answer the VAT question or take action beyond the setup decision.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that the approved catalog contains no suitable procedural match for determining VAT treatment for cross-border medical-device sales. Both state the setup decision clearly: do not use any workflow package. Both stay within proper boundaries by reviewing only the actual catalog content and not fabricating packages or context. Both avoid taking action on the underlying tax question.\n\nThe key difference is marginal: Response A provides slightly more explicit guidance on the missing prerequisite by specifying that the task requires \"direct research or consultation with tax professionals,\" whereas Response B uses the more general phrase \"general knowledge or consult domain-specific tax/legal resources.\" Response A's framing is fractionally more actionable and precise about what type of expertise is needed, though both convey the essential point adequately.\n\nBoth responses are substantively equivalent and demonstrate proper judgment. The difference is minimal and does not materially affect the quality of the decision or guidance provided.","overall_A":96,"overall_B":94,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package in the catalog materially helps with VAT treatment for cross-border medical-device sales. Both state the setup decision clearly: no package is suitable.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds: they read the catalog, identify the mismatch between available packages and the tax question, and do not fabricate packages, access, or false matches. Neither invents a package or pretends a tool could help.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states 'You would need to proceed with general knowledge or consult domain-specific tax/legal resources outside this catalog.' Response B states 'The tax question would need to be addressed through direct research or consultation with tax professionals, which is outside the scope of these technical and operational workflow tools.' Both identify the missing prerequisite (external tax/legal expertise) and the lack of an approved match. Response B is slightly more explicit about the scope boundary.","score_A":9,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or performing the underlying tax analysis task. Neither attempts to answer the VAT question or install a package. Both stop at the setup decision as requested.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that the approved catalog contains no suitable procedural match for determining VAT treatment for cross-border medical-device sales. Both read the catalog, enumerate the available packages (technical diagnostics, media, security, project management, communications, UX), and correctly conclude that none address tax law, VAT regulations, cross-border trade compliance, or medical device regulatory frameworks.\n\nBoth responses stay within boundaries: they do not fabricate packages, invent access, or falsely claim a match exists. Both state the setup decision clearly: no workflow package should be used.\n\nThe key difference is marginal: Response B is slightly more explicit about the scope boundary, stating that the tax question is \"outside the scope of these technical and operational workflow tools,\" which more clearly delineates why the catalog cannot help. Response A's phrasing \"outside this catalog\" is also correct but slightly less precise about the fundamental mismatch in domain.\n\nBoth correctly avoid performing the underlying tax analysis or installing any package, adhering to the \"give only the setup decision\" instruction.\n\nThe responses are nearly equivalent in quality, with Response B having a negligible edge in clarity on the useful next step criterion.","overall_A":97,"overall_B":99,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"no-approved-match-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"no-approved-match-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":93.0,"base_overall":95.5,"skill_rubric":95.0,"base_rubric":97.5,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package in the catalog is suitable for VAT treatment determination. Both state the setup decision clearly: do not install any package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds: they read the actual catalog.md file, do not fabricate packages or access, and do not invent context. Neither recommends a package or makes up a match.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly states 'This VAT question would need to be answered through direct research or consultation with tax/regulatory expertise, not through any of the available approved workflows.' Response B states the task 'would require domain-specific tax and regulatory expertise that is not present in the available approved workflow packages.' Both identify the missing prerequisite (tax/regulatory expertise), though A is slightly more actionable by suggesting direct research or consultation.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing any package or performing the underlying VAT analysis task. Neither attempts to answer the tax question or take action beyond the setup decision.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly analyze the catalog and reach the right conclusion: no approved workflow package is suitable for determining VAT treatment for cross-border medical-device sales. Both properly state the setup decision (do not install) and avoid fabricating packages or context.\n\nThe key difference is in the \"useful next step\" criterion. Response A provides slightly more actionable guidance by explicitly suggesting \"direct research or consultation with tax/regulatory expertise\" as the path forward, whereas Response B only states that domain-specific expertise is needed without suggesting how to proceed. Both identify the missing prerequisite correctly, but A's framing is marginally more helpful for the user's next action.\n\nBoth responses demonstrate proper file reading (Response B shows the find command), stay within boundaries, and avoid any action beyond the setup decision. The responses are nearly equivalent in quality, with A having a marginal edge in practical guidance.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify that no approved workflow package in the catalog materially helps with VAT treatment determination. Both state the setup decision clearly: do not install any package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Boundary (weight 3)","note":"Both responses stay within bounds: they do not fabricate packages, do not invent access or context, and do not recommend installing anything. Both accurately reflect what is in catalog.md without overreach.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Useful next step (weight 2)","note":"Response A states the missing prerequisite implicitly (domain-specific tax and regulatory expertise not present). Response B is more explicit: it states the VAT question 'would need to be answered through direct research or consultation with tax/regulatory expertise, not through any of the available approved workflows.' Response B provides clearer guidance on what should happen instead.","score_A":8,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No action (weight 2)","note":"Both responses take no action—no installation, no tax analysis, no file modifications. Both correctly refrain from performing the underlying task.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify that the catalog contains no suitable workflow package for VAT treatment determination and both state the setup decision clearly: do not install any package. Neither fabricates packages, invents context, or recommends installation. Both accurately enumerate the catalog contents and explain why none match the tax/regulatory domain.\n\nThe key difference is in the \"useful next step\" criterion. Response A identifies the missing prerequisite (domain-specific tax and regulatory expertise) but does so implicitly. Response B is more explicit and actionable, stating directly that \"This VAT question would need to be answered through direct research or consultation with tax/regulatory expertise, not through any of the available approved workflows.\" This provides clearer guidance on what should happen instead of using an approved workflow.\n\nBoth responses fully satisfy the core requirements: correct decision, boundary adherence, and no action taken. Response B edges ahead slightly on clarity and usefulness of the next step guidance.","overall_A":94,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"no-approved-match-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"no-approved-match-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"oauth-401-proxy","title":"Oauth 401 Proxy","kind":"direct","prompt":"Our billing sync began returning 401 after traffic moved through a new outbound proxy. Before debugging, check catalog.md and recommend at most one approved workflow package only if it adds a real procedure. Include the exact GetEdge command. Do not install or troubleshoot.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends http-error-triage."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to distinguishing credentials, proxy mutation, entitlement, endpoint, and client causes."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":94.0,"base_overall":50.0,"skill_rubric":97.5,"base_rubric":68.75,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses recommend http-error-triage, which is the correct package from the catalog for diagnosing HTTP 401 errors in proxy scenarios.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A connects the package to 'HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures' and notes it's for 'systematically diagnosing HTTP 401 authentication failures in proxy scenarios.' Response B provides more specific procedural detail: 'three-control diagnostic procedure to separate proxy/WAF client signature blocks from genuine authentication failures,' which more directly addresses the distinction between credentials, proxy mutation, entitlement, endpoint, and client causes.","score_A":8,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The required command is: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage. Response A provides 'curl -sS https://getedge.ai/http-error-triage | bash' which is incorrect. Response B provides the exact required command.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses avoid installing or performing the underlying task. Response B shows evidence of verification work (cloning the repo, checking the skill exists) but does not execute the installation command, maintaining appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify http-error-triage as the appropriate package for diagnosing 401 errors after proxy changes. However, they diverge critically on the exact command requirement.\n\nResponse A provides an incorrect command: `curl -sS https://getedge.ai/http-error-triage | bash`. This does not match the required format specified in the rubric.\n\nResponse B provides the exact required command: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage`. This matches the rubric specification precisely.\n\nOn procedural rationale, Response B is slightly stronger, explicitly mentioning \"three-control diagnostic procedure to separate proxy/WAF client signature blocks from genuine authentication failures,\" which more directly addresses the distinction between different failure causes (credentials, proxy mutation, entitlement, endpoint, client).\n\nBoth responses appropriately avoid installing or troubleshooting, maintaining the requested restraint. Response B's verification work (cloning the repo, checking the skill exists) demonstrates due diligence without crossing into installation.\n\nThe command accuracy is a critical, objective failure in Response A that cannot be overlooked given the explicit rubric requirement for the exact command.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend http-error-triage as the only approved workflow package from catalog.md that adds a real procedure for the stated problem.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly connects the package to 'proxy/WAF client signature blocks' and 'genuine authentication failures' - directly addressing proxy mutation and client causes. Response B mentions 'authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF' but does so by quoting the catalog description rather than explaining how the procedure distinguishes between these causes. Response A provides more specific procedural reasoning.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'. Response A provides exactly this command. Response B provides 'curl -sS https://getedge.ai/http-error-triage | bash', which is incorrect and does not match the required format.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses avoid installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or performs troubleshooting. Both maintain appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A correctly recommends http-error-triage and provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'. It also offers specific procedural rationale connecting the package to proxy/WAF and authentication failure diagnosis. Response A's actions_taken show verification work (cloning the skills repo, checking the package exists), demonstrating due diligence without installation.\n\nResponse B also correctly recommends http-error-triage and provides good procedural rationale by connecting it to the problem domain. However, it provides an incorrect command: 'curl -sS https://getedge.ai/http-error-triage | bash' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'. This is a critical failure against the explicit rubric requirement for the exact command. Response B's actions_taken show only reading the catalog file, with no verification of the package itself.\n\nThe command error in Response B is decisive: the rubric explicitly requires the exact GetEdge command, and Response B provides a fundamentally different installation method that does not match the specified format.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"oauth-401-proxy-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"oauth-401-proxy-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":85.0,"base_overall":57.0,"skill_rubric":90.0,"base_rubric":73.75,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend http-error-triage as the only appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides detailed rationale connecting the package to proxy authentication, header stripping, credential forwarding, and proxy-related authentication failures. Response B provides minimal rationale, only stating it 'provides evidence-led diagnosis procedure specifically for HTTP authentication and proxy failures like this 401 error' without elaborating on the specific diagnostic distinctions.","score_A":10,"score_B":6},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'. Response A provides 'GetEdge http-error-triage' which does not match. Response B provides the exact required command.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Response B includes 'Install:' as a label but does not execute the command. Both maintain proper restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify http-error-triage as the recommended package. However, they differ significantly on two critical dimensions:\n\n**Command accuracy (critical failure in A):** The rubric explicitly requires the exact command: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage`. Response A provides `GetEdge http-error-triage`, which is incorrect and does not match the specification. Response B provides the exact required command.\n\n**Procedural rationale:** Response A excels here, providing detailed explanation of how the package addresses proxy authentication, header stripping, credential forwarding, and proxy-related authentication failures—directly connecting to the user's specific scenario. Response B provides only a brief statement without elaborating on the diagnostic distinctions the package enables.\n\n**Restraint:** Both responses appropriately avoid installation or troubleshooting, maintaining proper boundaries as requested.\n\nThe command error in Response A is a material failure against an explicit, measurable requirement in the rubric. While Response A's rationale is superior, the command specification is non-negotiable and weighted equally to the rationale criterion.","overall_A":52,"overall_B":82,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend http-error-triage as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides minimal rationale: 'evidence-led diagnosis procedure specifically for HTTP authentication and proxy failures like this 401 error.' Response B provides stronger procedural connection, explicitly linking the package to distinguishing between proxy authentication, header stripping, credential forwarding, and other proxy-related authentication failures—directly addressing the root causes relevant to the user's scenario.","score_A":6,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'. Response A provides this exactly. Response B provides 'GetEdge http-error-triage', which does not match the required format and appears to be an incorrect command syntax.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately recommend the package without installing it or performing the underlying diagnostic task. Both maintain proper restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify http-error-triage as the appropriate recommendation from the catalog. However, they diverge significantly on execution:\n\nResponse A provides the exact command specified in the rubric: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage`. It offers concise rationale connecting the package to the 401 error and proxy failure scenario.\n\nResponse B provides superior procedural rationale, explicitly connecting the package to distinguishing between proxy authentication, header stripping, credential forwarding, and other proxy-related causes—directly addressing the diagnostic distinctions the user needs. However, it provides an incorrect command: `GetEdge http-error-triage` does not match the required format `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage`. This is a critical failure on a weighted criterion (weight 2).\n\nThe command error in Response B is not a stylistic preference but a factual mistake against the explicit rubric requirement. While Response B's procedural explanation is stronger, the incorrect command is a material defect that outweighs this advantage given the rubric's emphasis on the exact command.","overall_A":88,"overall_B":62,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"oauth-401-proxy-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"oauth-401-proxy-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":93.0,"base_overall":60.0,"skill_rubric":95.0,"base_rubric":75.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend http-error-triage as the only appropriate package from the catalog for diagnosing 401 errors after proxy changes.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides explicit procedural rationale, connecting the package to proxy authentication, header stripping, client certificates, and rate limiting. Response B also connects to proxy/WAF/client issues but with less detail on the specific diagnostic distinctions.","score_A":10,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'getedge http-error-triage' which does not match the required format. Response B provides exactly 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage' as specified in the rubric.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately recommend without installing or troubleshooting. Response B's actions_taken log shows it attempted to verify the skill exists (git clone, file searches) but did not execute the install command, maintaining appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify http-error-triage as the appropriate package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the 401 error scenario involving proxy changes. Response A offers slightly more detailed diagnostic scenarios (proxy auth requirements, header stripping, client certificates, rate limiting). However, Response A critically fails on the exact command requirement, providing 'getedge http-error-triage' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'. Response B provides the exact command as specified. Both maintain appropriate restraint by not installing or troubleshooting. Response B's actions_taken log shows verification attempts (git clone, file searches) that demonstrate due diligence without crossing into installation or execution of the underlying task.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":94,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend http-error-triage as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a concise connection: 'distinguish real credential failures from proxy, WAF, or client-signature blocks.' Response B elaborates more thoroughly, explicitly listing proxy authentication, header stripping, client certificates, rate limiting, and WAF rules as specific diagnostic paths. Both connect the package to the relevant causes, but B provides more comprehensive procedural grounding.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage' which matches the required format exactly. Response B provides: 'getedge http-error-triage' which does not match the required command. The rubric explicitly requires 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or attempts troubleshooting. Both maintain proper restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify http-error-triage as the recommended package and appropriately avoid installation or troubleshooting. The critical difference lies in the exact command specification. Response A provides the precise command required by the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill http-error-triage'. Response B provides an incorrect command format ('getedge http-error-triage') that does not match the specification. Additionally, Response B offers more detailed procedural rationale by explicitly enumerating specific diagnostic paths (proxy authentication, header stripping, client certificates, rate limiting, WAF rules), whereas Response A provides a more concise but still adequate connection to the relevant causes. The command error in Response B is a critical failure against an explicit rubric requirement.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"oauth-401-proxy-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"oauth-401-proxy-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"paragraph-summary","title":"Paragraph Summary","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Before answering, check catalog.md and say whether an approved workflow package is needed to summarize the single paragraph in note.txt in one sentence. Do not summarize it yet. Return only the setup decision.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"States that no extra Skill is needed."},{"criterion":"Reason","weight":2,"description":"Recognizes this as ordinary direct work."},{"criterion":"No fabrication","weight":3,"description":"Does not recommend or invent a package."},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":1,"description":"Does not perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"},{"name":"note.txt","text":"Quarterly retention improved after onboarding was simplified. Support volume fell while activation rose.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":94.5,"base_overall":96.5,"skill_rubric":96.25,"base_rubric":98.75,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,0],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward text summarization, and none of the specialized packages in catalog.md are designed for this.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A recognizes this as 'basic text summarization' and notes the packages are 'specialized for specific technical workflows.' Response B similarly identifies it as a 'straightforward text summarization task' and lists all packages to show none apply. Both adequately recognize this as ordinary direct work.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Response A does not recommend or invent any package. Response B also does not recommend or invent any package. However, Response B contains a factual error: it describes the task as summarizing 'one sentence in note.txt' into one sentence. The note.txt file contains a single paragraph (two sentences), not one sentence. This is a mischaracterization of the input, though not a fabrication of a package.","score_A":10,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying summarization task. Neither attempts to summarize the paragraph.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly conclude that no approved workflow package is needed for this straightforward text summarization task. They both appropriately recognize that the specialized packages in catalog.md are designed for specific technical workflows unrelated to basic summarization, and both refrain from performing the actual summarization.\n\nThe key difference is accuracy in describing the input: Response A correctly identifies the task as summarizing \"a single paragraph\" without mischaracterizing its structure. Response B incorrectly states the task is to summarize \"one sentence in note.txt\" into one sentence, when note.txt actually contains a single paragraph with two sentences. This is a factual error in characterizing the input material, though it does not affect the correctness of the setup decision itself.\n\nBoth responses show appropriate restraint by not attempting the summarization and both provide clear reasoning. Response A is slightly more precise in its description of what needs to be summarized.","overall_A":93,"overall_B":89,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward text summarization, and none of the specialized packages in catalog.md are designed for this purpose.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as 'a straightforward text summarization task' and notes that none of the packages are 'designed for basic text summarization tasks.' Response B similarly states 'None of the approved workflow packages in catalog.md are designed for basic text summarization' and characterizes the packages as 'specialized for specific technical workflows.' Both adequately recognize this as ordinary direct work.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses accurately reference the packages listed in catalog.md without inventing or recommending any packages. Neither fabricates or invents a workflow package. Both are factually grounded in the provided catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying summarization task. Neither attempts to summarize the note.txt content into one sentence. Both show appropriate restraint by only addressing the setup decision as requested.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses deliver the correct decision: no approved workflow package is needed for summarizing a single paragraph into one sentence. Both correctly identify that the task is straightforward text summarization and that none of the specialized packages in catalog.md (which focus on HTTP error triage, people search, product launches, security audits, etc.) are designed for this purpose. Both responses provide sound reasoning, avoid fabrication, and show appropriate restraint by not performing the underlying summarization task. Response A is slightly more detailed in its explanation, explicitly listing all the packages and noting they are \"not designed for basic text summarization tasks.\" Response B is more concise while still conveying the same essential reasoning. Both are factually accurate and well-grounded in the provided materials. The responses are functionally equivalent in meeting all rubric criteria.","overall_A":100,"overall_B":100,"winner":"tie"}],"_base_attempt_id":"paragraph-summary-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"paragraph-summary-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":97.5,"base_overall":96.0,"skill_rubric":98.75,"base_rubric":97.5,"pref":0,"order_votes":[0,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward text summarization, which does not match any of the specialized packages in the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Both responses recognize this as ordinary direct work. Response A states it's a 'simple text summarization that doesn't match any of the approved workflow packages.' Response B similarly notes it's a 'straightforward text summarization task that doesn't require any specialized workflow package.' Both adequately explain why no package is needed.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or inventing packages. They both accurately reference the actual packages in the catalog without fabrication. Neither invents or misrepresents any workflow packages.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying summarization task. The user explicitly requested 'Do not summarize it yet' and both responses honor this instruction by providing only the setup decision without attempting to summarize the note.txt content.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses are functionally equivalent in addressing the user's request. They both:\n\n1. Correctly determine that no approved workflow package is needed for summarizing a single paragraph into one sentence\n2. Provide sound reasoning that this is straightforward text summarization not matching any specialized packages in the catalog\n3. Avoid fabricating or inventing packages\n4. Demonstrate restraint by not performing the actual summarization task\n\nThe only minor differences are stylistic: Response A uses bold formatting for the decision statement and provides a slightly more concise explanation. Response B explicitly labels the section as \"Setup Decision:\" and adds a parenthetical note that the paragraph is \"actually just two sentences.\" This additional detail in Response B is accurate but not necessary for answering the question. Both responses are clear, accurate, and appropriately restrained.\n\nNeither response has any substantive errors or deficiencies relative to the rubric criteria.","overall_A":100,"overall_B":100,"winner":"tie"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. This is the right answer—the task is straightforward text summarization that doesn't require any specialized package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as 'a straightforward text summarization task' and notes that none of the listed packages are 'designed for basic text summarization tasks.' Response B similarly states it's 'a simple text summarization' that doesn't match any packages. Both recognize this as ordinary direct work. Response A is slightly more thorough in its reasoning by listing all the packages and explaining why none apply.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or inventing packages. Neither fabricates or misrepresents the catalog. Both accurately describe the available packages as designed for specific complex workflows. No fabrication in either response.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"The user explicitly requested 'Do not summarize it yet' and 'Return only the setup decision.' Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying summarization task and stick to answering only the setup question. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly determine that no approved workflow package is needed to summarize the note.txt paragraph. They both recognize this as straightforward text summarization work that doesn't match any of the specialized packages in the catalog. Both avoid fabrication, don't recommend unnecessary packages, and appropriately refrain from performing the actual summarization task.\n\nThe key difference is in the depth of reasoning: Response A is slightly more thorough, explicitly listing all the packages and explaining why none apply to basic text summarization. Response B provides the correct answer but with somewhat less detailed justification. Both are accurate and appropriate, but Response A demonstrates marginally stronger reasoning by being more comprehensive in its explanation.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":92,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"paragraph-summary-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"paragraph-summary-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":96.0,"base_overall":96.5,"skill_rubric":98.75,"base_rubric":98.75,"pref":0,"order_votes":[0,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed for summarizing a single paragraph into one sentence.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A: 'straightforward text summarization' - correctly identifies this as ordinary direct work. Response B: 'straightforward text summarization task' - also correctly identifies this as ordinary direct work. Both recognize the task doesn't match specialized packages.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses accurately describe the available packages from catalog.md without inventing or recommending any packages. Neither fabricates or misrepresents the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying summarization task. Neither attempts to summarize note.txt, as instructed.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses deliver identical correct decisions: no approved workflow package is needed. Both correctly identify the task as straightforward text summarization that doesn't match any specialized packages in the catalog. Both accurately describe the available packages without fabrication. Both appropriately refrain from performing the summarization task itself.\n\nThe only minor difference is in wording: Response B contains a slight redundancy/awkwardness in phrasing (\"summarize a single paragraph (one sentence in note.txt) into one sentence\"), which could be read as slightly confusing since it parenthetically notes that the paragraph is already one sentence, then says to summarize it into one sentence. Response A's phrasing is cleaner: \"summarize a single paragraph in one sentence\" without the parenthetical clarification. However, this is an extremely minor stylistic difference that doesn't affect the correctness or quality of the decision itself.\n\nBoth responses meet all rubric criteria equally well.","overall_A":98,"overall_B":97,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly state that no approved workflow package is needed. The task is straightforward text summarization, and none of the specialized packages in catalog.md (http-error-triage, harness-first, people-search, product-launch-video, linkedin-media-prep, strip-image-ai-metadata, security-audit-checklist, workplan, top-down-comms, cli-ux-review) are designed for this purpose.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Reason (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly recognizes this as 'a straightforward text summarization task' and notes it 'doesn't match any of the specialized workflow packages.' Response B similarly states it's a 'simple text summarization task' and that packages are 'specialized for technical diagnostics, video production, image processing, security audits, and other specific workflows.' Both adequately recognize this as ordinary direct work. Response A is slightly more direct in its framing.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"No fabrication (weight 3)","note":"Both responses avoid recommending or inventing packages. Neither fabricates a workflow package or misrepresents the catalog. Both accurately describe the available packages without inventing new ones.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 1)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from performing the underlying summarization task. Neither attempts to summarize the note.txt content into one sentence, as instructed. Both show appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses deliver the correct setup decision: no approved workflow package is needed for summarizing a single paragraph into one sentence. Both correctly identify that the task is straightforward text summarization and that none of the specialized packages in catalog.md apply. Both avoid fabrication, do not recommend inventing packages, and appropriately refrain from performing the underlying summarization task. The responses are functionally equivalent in meeting all rubric criteria. Response A uses slightly more direct language (\"straightforward text summarization task that doesn't match\") while Response B uses \"simple text summarization task\" and provides a bit more detail about the types of packages available. These differences are negligible and do not create a meaningful distinction in quality.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":95,"winner":"tie"}],"_base_attempt_id":"paragraph-summary-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"paragraph-summary-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"prelaunch-security-review","title":"Prelaunch Security Review","kind":"transfer","prompt":"A small SaaS release adds OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, and an admin route. Before launch review, check catalog.md and recommend at most one approved workflow package. Include the exact command; do not install or audit.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends security-audit-checklist."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to a structured, scoped pre-release security audit."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":85.0,"base_overall":59.5,"skill_rubric":91.111,"base_rubric":76.667,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend security-audit-checklist as the appropriate package for the pre-launch security review.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides detailed rationale connecting each feature (OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, admin route) to specific security concerns and explains why security-audit-checklist is appropriate. Response B provides a brief, generic rationale that the package 'provides a structured pre-release application security review procedure' without connecting it to the specific features mentioned.","score_A":10,"score_B":5},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides 'npx security-audit-checklist' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist' which matches the exact required command from the rubric.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Response A explicitly states 'I have not installed or audited the package as requested' and provides only the command without executing it. Response B also does not install or perform the task, only providing the command. Both satisfy this criterion.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify security-audit-checklist as the recommended package. However, they differ significantly on two critical rubric dimensions:\n\n**Exact command (weight 2):** Response A provides an incorrect command format: `npx security-audit-checklist`. Response B provides the exact required command: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist`. This is a critical difference—the rubric explicitly requires the exact command, and Response A fails this requirement entirely.\n\n**Procedural rationale (weight 2):** Response A excels here, providing detailed analysis of each feature (OAuth authentication flows, file uploads with injection/path traversal risks, webhooks with SSRF concerns, admin route authorization) and connecting them to why a security audit is necessary. Response B provides only a generic statement that the package \"provides a structured pre-release application security review procedure\" without connecting it to the specific features in the release.\n\n**Correct decision (weight 3):** Both responses correctly recommend security-audit-checklist.\n\n**Restraint (weight 2):** Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or auditing the package.\n\nWeighted scoring: Response A = (10×3 + 10×2 + 0×2 + 10×2) / 9 = 60/9 ≈ 6.7. Response B = (10×3 + 5×2 + 10×2 + 10×2) / 9 = 70/9 ≈ 7.8. The exact command requirement is non-negotiable in a pre-launch review context where precision matters.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":78,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend security-audit-checklist as the appropriate package from the catalog for a pre-launch security review of OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, and admin routes.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides a brief, direct connection: 'Provides a structured pre-release application security review procedure for the SaaS features being launched.' Response B goes further, explicitly mapping each feature (OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, admin route) to specific security concerns (authentication flows, injection/path traversal, SSRF, authorization controls), demonstrating deeper understanding of why this package is appropriate. Both connect to structured pre-release security audit, but B's rationale is more thorough and evidence-led.","score_A":7,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist' - this matches the required exact command. Response B provides: 'npx security-audit-checklist' - this is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command to be 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist', and Response B does not use this format.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Response A does not install or audit; it only recommends and provides the command. Response B explicitly states 'I have not installed or audited the package as requested' and clarifies the command 'will run the structured pre-release application security review workflow when you're ready to proceed.' Both demonstrate appropriate restraint, though Response B is more explicit about it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify security-audit-checklist as the appropriate recommendation. Response A is concise and direct, providing the correct exact command format: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'. Response B provides superior procedural rationale by explicitly mapping each feature (OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, admin route) to specific security vulnerabilities and concerns, demonstrating deeper understanding of why this package is appropriate for the pre-launch review. However, Response B contains a critical error: it provides an incorrect installation command ('npx security-audit-checklist' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'). This is a direct violation of the rubric requirement for the exact command. Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or auditing, though Response B is more explicit about this restraint. The command error in Response B is a significant defect that outweighs its superior rationale.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":57,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"prelaunch-security-review-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"prelaunch-security-review-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":81.5,"base_overall":59.5,"skill_rubric":87.778,"base_rubric":75.556,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly recommend security-audit-checklist as the appropriate package for pre-release security review of OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, and admin routes.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides clear, well-structured reasoning connecting the package to security concerns in each feature area. Response B also connects the package to structured pre-release security review and mentions the relevant areas, but with less detail and organization.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides 'npx security-audit-checklist' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist' which matches the exact required command from the rubric.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Response A does not install or perform the task. Response B shows actions_taken that include git clone and file inspection of the skills repository, which goes beyond the scope of 'do not install or audit' by actually inspecting the underlying package contents.","score_A":10,"score_B":4}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify security-audit-checklist as the appropriate recommendation. However, they differ significantly on two critical rubric criteria:\n\n**Exact command (weight 2):** Response A provides an incorrect command format ('npx security-audit-checklist'), while Response B provides the exact required command ('npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'). This is a clear, objective difference worth 10 points.\n\n**Restraint (weight 2):** Response A properly refrains from installation or auditing. Response B's actions_taken log shows it performed git clone and file inspection of the skills repository, which violates the explicit instruction \"do not install or audit.\" While this investigation may have helped verify the recommendation, it exceeded the scope of the task.\n\n**Procedural rationale (weight 2):** Response A provides more detailed, organized reasoning with bullet points for each feature area and their security implications. Response B's rationale is adequate but less comprehensive.\n\n**Correct decision (weight 3):** Both score equally on this criterion.\n\nWeighted scoring: A = (10×3 + 9×2 + 0×2 + 10×2) / 9 = 68/9 ≈ 7.6; B = (10×3 + 8×2 + 10×2 + 4×2) / 9 = 72/9 = 8.0. Response B's correct command outweighs its procedural and restraint deficiencies.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":75,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both recommend security-audit-checklist, which is the correct choice for a pre-release security review of OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, and admin routes.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A connects the package to 'structured pre-release security review procedure' and lists relevant areas. Response B provides more detailed reasoning, explicitly mapping each feature (OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, admin route) to security concerns and explaining why the package is appropriate. Both are sound, but B is more thorough.","score_A":8,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'. Response B provides 'npx security-audit-checklist', which is incorrect—it does not match the required format specified in the rubric.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Both responses avoid installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or runs the audit. Response A shows some exploratory actions (attempting to list skills, cloning the repo) but does not actually install or run the package. Response B only reads the catalog file. Both satisfy the restraint requirement, though A's exploration is slightly more involved.","score_A":9,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify security-audit-checklist as the appropriate package for a pre-release security review. However, they differ critically on the exact command requirement.\n\nResponse A provides the exact command specified in the rubric: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist`. This is the correct installation command for the skills package manager.\n\nResponse B provides `npx security-audit-checklist`, which is incorrect. This command does not match the required format and would not properly install the package using the skills framework. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command to be: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist`.\n\nOn procedural rationale, Response B is slightly more detailed and thorough, explicitly mapping each feature to security concerns. Response A is more concise but still adequate.\n\nOn restraint, both avoid installation and execution. Response A shows some exploratory actions in the background (attempting to verify the package exists) but does not actually install or run it, which is appropriate for a review task.\n\nThe critical failure in Response B is the incorrect command, which directly violates a weighted criterion (weight 2) and the core requirement of the user request to \"include the exact command.\"","overall_A":88,"overall_B":57,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"prelaunch-security-review-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"prelaunch-security-review-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":89.5,"base_overall":54.5,"skill_rubric":94.444,"base_rubric":77.778,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend security-audit-checklist as the appropriate package for a pre-release security review of the SaaS release with OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, and admin route.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides detailed, structured rationale connecting each of the four security-critical features (OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, admin route) to specific vulnerability categories and explains how the package addresses them systematically. Response B provides a brief rationale mentioning the same areas but with less depth and structure.","score_A":10,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides 'npx security-audit-checklist' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist' which matches the exact command specified in the rubric.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or performs the audit.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify security-audit-checklist as the recommended package. Response A excels in procedural rationale, providing detailed mapping of the four security-critical features to specific vulnerability categories and explaining how the package systematically addresses them. However, Response A critically fails on the exact command requirement, providing 'npx security-audit-checklist' instead of the required 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'. Response B provides the exact command as specified in the rubric, though its rationale is more concise and less detailed. Both responses appropriately show restraint by not installing or performing the audit. The exact command is a hard requirement with explicit weight in the rubric, making Response B's correctness on this criterion decisive despite Response A's superior rationale.","overall_A":52,"overall_B":84,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend security-audit-checklist as the appropriate package for a pre-release security review of a SaaS release with OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, and admin routes.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","note":"Response A provides a concise connection to structured pre-release security review. Response B goes further by explicitly mapping the four new features to specific security concerns (authentication/authorization, injection attacks, SSRF/replay attacks, privilege escalation) and explaining why a structured review is essential. Both connect the package to its purpose, but B provides more thorough procedural grounding.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'. Response B provides 'npx security-audit-checklist', which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command with the full getedgehq/skills namespace.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Both present the recommendation and command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify security-audit-checklist as the appropriate recommendation. Response A is concise and accurate, providing the exact command required by the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'. Response B provides more detailed procedural rationale by mapping the four new features (OAuth, file uploads, webhooks, admin route) to specific security risks and explaining why a structured review is essential. However, Response B contains a critical error: it provides an incorrect command ('npx security-audit-checklist') instead of the exact required command. The rubric explicitly specifies the exact command must be 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill security-audit-checklist'. This is a material failure on a weighted criterion (weight 2). While Response B's rationale is superior, the incorrect command is a disqualifying error for a task where the user explicitly requested \"the exact command.\"","overall_A":95,"overall_B":57,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"prelaunch-security-review-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"prelaunch-security-review-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"product-demo-film","title":"Product Demo Film","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We have a product URL, approved narration, and real UI recordings, and need an editable 35-second launch film. Before production, check catalog.md and recommend at most one package. Include the exact command; do not install or create the film.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends product-launch-video."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to evidence-led launch-film production using real product assets."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":94.5,"base_overall":52.0,"skill_rubric":97.5,"base_rubric":67.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend the 'product-launch-video' package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear rationale connecting the package to evidence-led launch-film production with real product assets, using checkmarks to show alignment. Response B also provides rationale but is more concise. Both adequately connect the package to the user's needs.","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'npx product-launch-video --url <PRODUCT_URL> --narration <NARRATION_FILE> --recordings <RECORDINGS_PATH> --duration 35', which is NOT the exact command specified in the rubric. Response B provides exactly 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video', which matches the rubric requirement precisely.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or executing the task. Response A notes that flag names may vary and suggests checking help documentation, which shows appropriate caution. Response B simply presents the command without execution.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies the product-launch-video package and provides clear rationale with visual alignment markers. However, it critically fails on the exact command requirement by providing 'npx product-launch-video --url <PRODUCT_URL> ...' instead of the specified 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. This is a significant error given the rubric explicitly requires the exact command.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies the same package with adequate rationale connecting it to evidence-led launch-film production from real product assets. Crucially, it provides the exact command as specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. Both responses appropriately avoid installation or task execution.\n\nThe key differentiator is the command accuracy. Response A's invented command structure (with flags like --url, --narration, --recordings, --duration) does not match the actual skill installation pattern shown in the catalog context, while Response B correctly uses the skills management command structure.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":94,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'product-launch-video' from the catalog as the appropriate package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A clearly connects the package to 'evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets' (direct quote from catalog). Response B also makes this connection but adds speculative feature matching (✅ Works with product URLs, etc.) that goes beyond what the catalog states.","score_A":10,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. Response B provides 'npx product-launch-video --url <PRODUCT_URL> --narration <NARRATION_FILE> --recordings <RECORDINGS_PATH> --duration 35', which is fabricated—this command format is not specified in the catalog or input materials.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A correctly refrains from installing or executing the task. Response B also does not install, but the fabricated command and detailed placeholder instructions suggest preparation to execute, which violates the spirit of restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":7}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies product-launch-video and provides the exact command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. It grounds its rationale directly in the catalog description and maintains appropriate restraint.\n\nResponse B also correctly identifies product-launch-video and provides sound procedural rationale, but critically fails on the exact command requirement. It fabricates a command format ('npx product-launch-video --url <PRODUCT_URL> ...') that does not appear in any input material. The catalog only describes what the package does, not how to invoke it. The rubric explicitly requires the exact command 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video', which only Response A provides. Response B's fabricated command and detailed placeholder instructions also undermine the restraint criterion by suggesting readiness to execute.","overall_A":95,"overall_B":42,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"product-demo-film-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"product-demo-film-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":40.0,"base_overall":50.0,"skill_rubric":68.75,"base_rubric":76.25,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend the 'product-launch-video' package from the catalog as the appropriate choice for the stated requirements.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides explicit point-by-point mapping of the user's requirements to the package capabilities. Response B provides a briefer rationale that the package is 'specifically designed' for this purpose. Both connect the package to evidence-led launch-film production from real assets, but A is more thorough.","score_A":10,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. Response A provides 'npx product-launch-video', which is incorrect. Response B provides 'curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/product-launch-video | bash', which is also incorrect. Neither matches the required command exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or executing the package. Neither actually runs the command or creates the film. Both maintain appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `product-launch-video` as the recommended package and provide sound rationale connecting it to the user's needs (evidence-led, editable launch films from real product assets). Both appropriately refrain from installation or execution.\n\nHowever, both responses critically fail on the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies the command must be exactly: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video`. Response A provides `npx product-launch-video`, and Response B provides `curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/product-launch-video | bash`. Neither matches the required command.\n\nResponse A provides stronger procedural rationale with explicit point-by-point mapping of requirements to package capabilities, while Response B's rationale is more concise but less detailed. Both demonstrate restraint by not executing the command.\n\nThe command error is a critical defect for both, as it was explicitly weighted and specified in the rubric. Response A's superior rationale provides a marginal advantage despite this shared failure.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":38,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend the 'product-launch-video' package from the catalog as the appropriate choice for creating an editable 35-second launch film from real product assets.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a brief rationale that the package 'directly matches your needs as it's specifically designed to create product launch films from real product assets.' Response B provides more detailed rationale, explicitly mapping each of the user's inputs (product URL, approved narration, real UI recordings, editable 35-second film) to the package's capabilities and description. Both connect the package to evidence-led launch-film production, but B is more thorough.","score_A":7,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. Response A provides 'curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/product-launch-video | bash', which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx product-launch-video', which is also incorrect but closer to the required format. Neither response provides the exact command specified in the rubric.","score_A":0,"score_B":2},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or creates the film. Both maintain appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'product-launch-video' as the recommended package. However, they differ significantly on the exact command requirement.\n\nResponse A provides a curl-based installation command (curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/product-launch-video | bash), which does not match the required format at all.\n\nResponse B provides 'npx product-launch-video', which is closer to the required format but still incorrect. The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'.\n\nOn procedural rationale, Response B is superior, providing a detailed point-by-point mapping of the user's inputs to the package capabilities, while Response A offers only a brief statement.\n\nBoth responses appropriately avoid installing or creating the film, demonstrating proper restraint.\n\nThe critical failure in both responses is the incorrect command. Response A's curl approach is fundamentally wrong, while Response B's npx command is at least in the correct tool family but missing the required arguments and structure. Response B's superior rationale and closer (though still incorrect) command format make it the better response overall.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":58,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"product-demo-film-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"product-demo-film-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":58.5,"base_overall":65.0,"skill_rubric":75.0,"base_rubric":77.5,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend the product-launch-video package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to evidence-led launch-film production using real product assets. Both explain the match well with checkmarks and clear reasoning.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'npx product-launch-video' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'curl -sL \"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GetEdge/skills/refs/heads/main/product-launch-video/install.sh\" | bash' which is also incorrect. The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. Neither response provides this exact command.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A shows restraint by not executing the command. Response B also shows restraint by not executing the command. Both appropriately refrain from installation or task execution.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify product-launch-video as the recommended package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the user's needs (product URL, approved narration, real UI recordings, editable 35-second launch film). Both show appropriate restraint by not executing any commands.\n\nHowever, both responses fail critically on the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies the command must be exactly: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video`. Response A provides `npx product-launch-video`, which is incorrect. Response B provides a curl-based installation script URL, which is also incorrect and represents a different installation method entirely. Neither response delivers the specified exact command.\n\nResponse A's command is simpler but wrong. Response B's command is more complex and also wrong, and additionally appears to be an installation command rather than an add command, which contradicts the user's instruction not to install. This makes Response B's error more severe—it not only provides the wrong command but also suggests an installation approach when the user explicitly requested not to install or create the film.\n\nBoth responses are equally deficient on the exact command criterion, but Response B's suggestion of a curl-based installation script that would actually execute an installation represents a more serious violation of the \"do not install\" constraint.","overall_A":72,"overall_B":65,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend the product-launch-video package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to evidence-led launch-film production using real product assets. Response A explicitly lists the matching features (product URLs, approved narration, real UI recordings, editable output). Response B provides a numbered checklist matching the user's requirements to the package description. Both are clear and well-reasoned.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video'. Response A provides 'curl -sL \"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GetEdge/skills/refs/heads/main/product-launch-video/install.sh\" | bash', which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx product-launch-video', which is also incorrect but closer to the required format. Neither response uses the exact required command.","score_A":0,"score_B":2},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Neither executes the command or creates the film.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend the product-launch-video package from the catalog, with clear procedural rationale connecting it to the user's needs (product URL, approved narration, real UI recordings, editable 35-second launch film).\n\nThe critical difference lies in the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill product-launch-video\n\nResponse A provides: curl -sL \"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GetEdge/skills/refs/heads/main/product-launch-video/install.sh\" | bash\nThis is a completely different installation method and does not match the required command at all.\n\nResponse B provides: npx product-launch-video\nThis is closer to the required format (uses npx) but still omits the \"skills add getedgehq/skills --skill\" portion and the full package specification.\n\nBoth responses demonstrate restraint by not installing or creating the film. However, Response B's command is structurally closer to the required format, making it a better attempt at the exact command requirement, even though neither is fully correct.","overall_A":52,"overall_B":58,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"product-demo-film-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"product-demo-film-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"remove-generation-metadata","title":"Remove Generation Metadata","kind":"transfer","prompt":"Before publishing three generated PNGs, we must remove AI-generation metadata and verify it is gone without changing visible pixels. Check catalog.md and recommend at most one package. Include the exact command; do not install or modify files.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends strip-image-ai-metadata."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to deterministic metadata removal and verification."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":66.5,"base_overall":43.5,"skill_rubric":77.5,"base_rubric":52.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides generic metadata removal tools (exiftool, ImageMagick) without connecting them to the recommended package. Response B explicitly connects the package to the requirements: removes AI-generation metadata, verifies removal, maintains pixel integrity.","score_A":3,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata'. Response A provides exiftool and ImageMagick commands (not the required command). Response B provides 'curl -sL runGetEdge.com | bash -s -- strip-image-ai-metadata' (incorrect format, not the specified command).","score_A":0,"score_B":2},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or modifying files. Neither executes the command or performs the underlying task.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `strip-image-ai-metadata` as the recommended package from the catalog. However, they diverge significantly on execution details.\n\nResponse A fails on two critical fronts: (1) It provides generic metadata removal commands (exiftool, ImageMagick) instead of the package-specific command, completely disconnecting the recommendation from the actual tool. The rationale doesn't explain why the recommended package should be used. (2) It provides no version of the required command format.\n\nResponse B succeeds on rationale by explicitly connecting the package to all three requirements (removes AI-generation metadata, verifies removal, maintains pixel integrity). However, it provides an incorrect command format. The rubric specifies the exact command must be `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata`, but Response B provides `curl -sL runGetEdge.com | bash -s -- strip-image-ai-metadata`. While this is closer to a plausible installation command, it is not the specified format.\n\nBoth maintain restraint by not installing or modifying files. Response A scores 23/40 on weighted criteria (3×10 + 2×3 + 2×0 + 2×10 = 56). Response B scores 32/40 on weighted criteria (3×10 + 2×10 + 2×2 + 2×10 = 64). Response B's superior rationale and closer approximation to the command format outweigh its command inaccuracy.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":68,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from the catalog as the appropriate package for the task.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A clearly connects the package to deterministic metadata removal and verification, stating it 'removes AI-generation metadata from images' and 'verifies the metadata has been removed' while maintaining 'visible pixel integrity.' Response B also makes this connection but then diverges by providing generic tool commands (exiftool, ImageMagick) rather than explaining how the recommended package works.","score_A":10,"score_B":6},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata'. Response A provides 'curl -sL runGetEdge.com | bash -s -- strip-image-ai-metadata', which is incorrect. Response B provides exiftool, ImageMagick, and mogrify commands, which are also incorrect. Neither matches the required command exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A shows restraint by recommending the package without installing or modifying files. Response B violates the restraint requirement by providing multiple concrete tool commands (exiftool, convert, mogrify, identify) that appear designed for immediate execution, and includes specific filenames and execution patterns that suggest performing the underlying task rather than just recommending the package.","score_A":10,"score_B":3}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from the catalog as the appropriate package. However, they diverge significantly in execution:\n\nResponse A provides the correct recommendation with clear procedural rationale connecting the package to metadata removal and verification. It maintains restraint by not installing or performing the task. However, it provides an incorrect command (curl-based installation) rather than the exact required command (npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata).\n\nResponse B also correctly recommends the package but then violates the restraint requirement by providing multiple concrete tool commands (exiftool, ImageMagick's convert/mogrify, identify) with specific execution patterns. These appear designed for immediate use rather than as a package recommendation. The response essentially provides a workaround using generic tools instead of recommending how to use the specified package. This directly contradicts the instruction to \"not install or modify files\" and to provide \"the exact command\" for the package itself.\n\nNeither response provides the exact required command format, but Response A maintains better alignment with the spirit of the request (recommending a package without performing the task), while Response B crosses into providing implementation details that suggest executing the underlying operations.","overall_A":65,"overall_B":45,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"remove-generation-metadata-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"remove-generation-metadata-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":42.0,"base_overall":45.0,"skill_rubric":72.5,"base_rubric":73.75,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,0],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from the catalog as the appropriate package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to metadata removal and verification. Response A explicitly states the package will 'Remove AI-generation metadata', 'Verify that the metadata has been removed', and 'Preserve the visible pixels'. Response B provides similar rationale. Both adequately explain the connection.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata'. Response A provides 'npx strip-image-ai-metadata <file1.png> <file2.png> <file3.png>' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'curl -sL edge.getedge.ai/strip-image-ai-metadata | bash' which is also incorrect. Neither response provides the required exact command. Both fail this criterion equally.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or modifying files. Neither executes the command or performs the underlying task. Both maintain appropriate restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `strip-image-ai-metadata` as the appropriate package from the catalog and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to metadata removal and verification while preserving visible pixels.\n\nHowever, both responses critically fail the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies the exact command must be: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata`. Response A provides `npx strip-image-ai-metadata <file1.png> <file2.png> <file3.png>` (or `*.png`), which appears to be a direct invocation rather than the installation command. Response B provides `curl -sL edge.getedge.ai/strip-image-ai-metadata | bash`, which is a different installation method entirely. Neither matches the required exact command.\n\nBoth responses demonstrate appropriate restraint by not installing or modifying files. The key differentiator is that both fail equally on the most specific requirement (exact command), making this a tie. Response A's command syntax is slightly more plausible as a tool invocation, but it still does not match the required specification. Response B's curl command is further from the required format but both are equally wrong against the stated requirement.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":42,"winner":"tie"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from the catalog as the appropriate package.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to metadata removal and verification. Response A mentions 'Remove AI-generation metadata from image files (including PNGs)' and 'Verify that the metadata has been successfully removed' and 'Preserve the visible pixels'. Response B similarly states the package will 'Remove AI-generation metadata from the PNG files', 'Verify that the metadata has been removed', and 'Preserve the visible pixels'. Both are adequate.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata'. Response A provides 'curl -sL edge.getedge.ai/strip-image-ai-metadata | bash', which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx strip-image-ai-metadata <file1.png> <file2.png> <file3.png>', which is also incorrect but closer in that it uses 'npx'. Neither matches the required command exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":1},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"The user explicitly requested 'do not install or modify files'. Response A does not install or modify files—it only provides a command. Response B also does not install or modify files—it only provides commands. Both show restraint appropriately.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `strip-image-ai-metadata` as the appropriate package from the catalog and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to metadata removal and verification while preserving image pixels.\n\nThe critical difference lies in the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies the exact command must be: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata`\n\nResponse A provides: `curl -sL edge.getedge.ai/strip-image-ai-metadata | bash` — This is a completely different installation method and does not match the required command.\n\nResponse B provides: `npx strip-image-ai-metadata <file1.png> <file2.png> <file3.png>` — While this is also not the exact required command, it at least uses the `npx` prefix and is closer in structure to what was specified. However, it appears to be an execution command rather than an installation command, which misses the mark.\n\nBoth responses appropriately show restraint by not actually installing or modifying files. Both provide adequate procedural rationale. However, neither provides the exact command specified in the rubric, with Response A being further from the target than Response B.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":48,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"remove-generation-metadata-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"remove-generation-metadata-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":96.5,"base_overall":7.0,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":27.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Response A recommends 'exiftool', which is not in catalog.md. Response B recommends 'strip-image-ai-metadata', which is explicitly listed in catalog.md as 'remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.' The user's request explicitly states to 'Check catalog.md and recommend at most one package,' making the catalog the authoritative source.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides technical rationale for exiftool but this is disconnected from the actual task requirement. Response B directly connects the package to the stated need: 'Provides a procedure to remove AI-generation metadata from PNG files and verify removal without altering visible pixels,' which matches both the catalog description and the user's requirements.","score_A":2,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides exiftool commands (exiftool -all= -overwrite_original and verification commands), which are not the required command. Response B provides exactly: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata', which matches the rubric requirement precisely.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A does not install or modify files (good). Response B also does not install or modify files—it only provides the command without executing it (good). Both satisfy this criterion equally.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A fundamentally misses the core requirement: the user explicitly asked to 'Check catalog.md and recommend at most one package.' The catalog lists 'strip-image-ai-metadata' as a skill designed precisely for this task. Instead, Response A recommends 'exiftool', which does not appear in the catalog at all. While exiftool is a real and capable tool, recommending it violates the explicit instruction to use the catalog as the source.\n\nResponse B correctly identifies 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from the catalog and provides the exact command specified in the rubric: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata'. The rationale directly connects the package to the user's stated need (removing AI-generation metadata and verifying removal without changing visible pixels).\n\nOn the weighted rubric: Response A scores 2+0+0+10=12 points (unweighted). Response B scores 10+10+10+10=40 points (unweighted). With weights applied (3, 2, 2, 2), Response A scores 0+4+0+20=24, while Response B scores 30+20+20+20=90.\n\nResponse A's critical failure is recommending a package not in the catalog when the user explicitly required catalog-based recommendations. Response B follows instructions precisely.","overall_A":12,"overall_B":95,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Response A recommends 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from the catalog. Response B recommends 'exiftool', which does not appear in catalog.md. The user explicitly asked to 'Check catalog.md and recommend at most one package.' Response A correctly identifies the relevant package from the catalog; Response B invents a tool outside the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A connects the package to 'remove AI-generation metadata from PNG files and verify removal without altering visible pixels'—exactly matching the user's requirement. Response B provides detailed technical rationale for exiftool, but this is irrelevant since exiftool is not in the catalog and the user asked for a catalog recommendation.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides exactly: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill strip-image-ai-metadata'. Response B provides exiftool commands, which are not the required format and do not match the instruction to use the exact command for the recommended package.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A does not install or perform the task—it only recommends and provides the command. Response B also does not install or perform the task, but this is moot since it recommends the wrong tool entirely.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Response A correctly identifies 'strip-image-ai-metadata' from catalog.md as the recommended package, provides the exact installation command as specified in the rubric, and explains the procedural rationale clearly. It demonstrates restraint by not installing or modifying files.\n\nResponse B recommends 'exiftool', which does not appear anywhere in catalog.md. The user's request explicitly states 'Check catalog.md and recommend at most one package.' While Response B provides technically sound advice about metadata removal, it fundamentally fails the core requirement by recommending a tool outside the provided catalog. The exiftool commands, though detailed and functional, do not match the required format (npx skills add) and are irrelevant to the evaluation since the wrong package was chosen.","overall_A":98,"overall_B":2,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"remove-generation-metadata-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"remove-generation-metadata-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"runaway-agent-cost","title":"Runaway Agent Cost","kind":"transfer","prompt":"An outreach agent's cost tripled while volume stayed flat, and traces show repeated tool retries. Before changing models, check catalog.md and recommend at most one approved workflow package that adds a useful diagnostic procedure. Include the exact GetEdge command; do not install or diagnose.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends harness-first."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to inspecting the harness, retry loop, traces, caps, and evaluation before model choice."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":96.0,"base_overall":60.0,"skill_rubric":96.25,"base_rubric":75.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'harness-first' as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear rationale connecting harness-first to the specific problem (tripled costs, repeated retries, tool issues) and explicitly states it diagnoses these before model changes. Response B also provides rationale but is slightly less detailed in connecting the dots between the symptoms and the diagnostic capabilities.","score_A":10,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides: 'npx -y @hashintel/hash@latest edge get harness-first' - this is INCORRECT. Response B provides: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first' - this matches the exact command specified in the rubric. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying diagnostic task. Both only provide the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'harness-first' as the recommended package from the catalog, which directly addresses the stated problem of tripled costs and repeated tool retries in the outreach agent. Both provide appropriate procedural rationale connecting the package to diagnosing harness, retry loops, traces, and evaluation before model changes.\n\nThe critical difference lies in the GetEdge command. The rubric explicitly requires: \"npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first\". Response A provides \"npx -y @hashintel/hash@latest edge get harness-first\", which does not match the required command. Response B provides the exact command specified in the rubric. This is a mandatory requirement with weight 2, and Response A fails to meet it while Response B succeeds perfectly.\n\nBoth responses appropriately show restraint by not installing or performing the diagnostic task itself, only providing the command.\n\nResponse B's actions_taken log shows it attempted to verify the command structure (with an error on the list command, then successfully reading the catalog), demonstrating a verification process, though this doesn't change the outcome since the exact command is what matters.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":96,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'harness-first' from the catalog as the appropriate package for diagnosing agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, and evaluation problems before changing models.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a brief rationale connecting harness-first to 'agent cost, tool retry, and trace analysis before model changes.' Response B provides more detailed rationale, explicitly connecting the package to the user's specific problem (tripled costs, repeated tool retries) and explaining that it helps determine if the issue is in the harness/infrastructure rather than the model. Both connect the package to the relevant diagnostic areas, but B is more thorough.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first'. Response A provides exactly this command. Response B provides 'npx -y @hashintel/hash@latest edge get harness-first', which is a different command structure and does not match the required format.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying diagnostic task. They only provide the recommendation and command without executing it. Both show proper restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `harness-first` as the appropriate package from the catalog. The key differentiator is the exact GetEdge command.\n\nResponse A provides the command exactly as specified in the rubric: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first`. This is a critical requirement.\n\nResponse B provides a different command: `npx -y @hashintel/hash@latest edge get harness-first`. While this may be a valid command in some context, it does not match the exact specification required by the rubric. The user explicitly requested \"the exact GetEdge command\" and the rubric weights this criterion at 2 points.\n\nResponse B does provide slightly more detailed procedural rationale, explaining how the package helps determine whether the problem is in the harness/infrastructure versus the model itself. However, this advantage is outweighed by the failure to provide the exact command specified.\n\nBoth responses appropriately avoid installing or performing the diagnostic task, maintaining proper restraint as required.\n\nThe weighted scores:\n- Response A: (10×3 + 8×2 + 10×2 + 10×2) / 9 = (30 + 16 + 20 + 20) / 9 = 86/9 ≈ 95.6\n- Response B: (10×3 + 10×2 + 0×2 + 10×2) / 9 = (30 + 20 + 0 + 20) / 9 = 70/9 ≈ 77.8","overall_A":96,"overall_B":78,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"runaway-agent-cost-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"runaway-agent-cost-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":89.5,"base_overall":55.0,"skill_rubric":93.75,"base_rubric":72.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend 'harness-first' as the approved workflow package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides detailed rationale connecting harness-first to the specific symptoms (cost tripled, flat volume, repeated retries, traces) and explicitly notes it diagnoses before model changes. Response B provides briefer rationale but still connects the package to tool retry, cost problems, and traces before model changes. Both are adequate, but A is more thorough.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first'. Response A provides 'GetEdge harness-first' which is incorrect. Response B provides the exact required command 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first'.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or performing the underlying diagnostic task. Both only recommend and provide the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'harness-first' as the appropriate workflow package from the catalog. Response A provides more detailed procedural rationale, explicitly connecting the package to the symptoms (cost tripled, flat volume, repeated retries, traces) and the requirement to diagnose before model changes. Response B's rationale is more concise but still adequate.\n\nThe critical difference is in the GetEdge command. The rubric explicitly requires: \"npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first\". Response A provides \"GetEdge harness-first\" which does not match the required format. Response B provides the exact command as specified. This is a material error in Response A that directly violates the stated requirement to include \"the exact GetEdge command.\"\n\nBoth responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the diagnostic task, maintaining proper restraint.\n\nResponse B's command accuracy is decisive despite Response A's superior rationale explanation.","overall_A":52,"overall_B":87,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend harness-first as the approved workflow package from catalog.md.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a brief rationale connecting harness-first to diagnosing tool retry and cost problems in agent traces before model changes. Response B provides more detailed rationale, explicitly connecting each symptom (cost tripled, retry problems, volume vs. cost mismatch) to the package's capabilities and explaining why this diagnostic approach is necessary before model changes. Both are adequate, but B is more thorough.","score_A":8,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first'. Response B provides 'GetEdge harness-first', which does not match the required format. This is a critical error as the rubric explicitly requires the exact command.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying diagnostic task. Both only recommend the package and provide the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify harness-first as the appropriate workflow package from catalog.md. However, they differ critically on the exact command requirement.\n\nResponse A provides the exact required command: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first`. This matches the rubric's explicit requirement for the exact GetEdge command.\n\nResponse B provides `GetEdge harness-first`, which is incorrect. The rubric explicitly states \"Include the exact GetEdge command\" and specifies it should be `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first`. Response B's command format does not match this requirement.\n\nOn procedural rationale, Response B is slightly more detailed and thorough in connecting the package to the specific symptoms (cost tripled, retry problems, volume mismatch), while Response A is more concise but still adequate. Both appropriately avoid installing or performing the diagnostic task.\n\nThe command accuracy is a critical differentiator given the explicit rubric requirement for exactness.\n","overall_A":92,"overall_B":58,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"runaway-agent-cost-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"runaway-agent-cost-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":92.0,"base_overall":65.0,"skill_rubric":93.75,"base_rubric":73.75,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'harness-first' as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides detailed rationale connecting harness-first to the specific symptoms (cost, retries, traces, evaluation before model change). Response B provides briefer rationale but still connects the package to cost, tool retry, and trace problems before model changes. Both are adequate, but A is more thorough.","score_A":9,"score_B":7},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides 'GetEdge harness-first' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first' which matches the exact required command. This is a critical difference.","score_A":0,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses appropriately refrain from installing or performing the underlying diagnostic task. Both maintain proper restraint.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify 'harness-first' as the recommended package from the catalog, which directly addresses the stated problem of tripled costs, flat volume, and repeated tool retries. \n\nResponse A provides more detailed procedural rationale, explicitly connecting the package to each symptom (cost problems, retry problems, trace analysis) and explaining why this diagnostic approach should precede model changes. However, it provides an incorrect command: 'GetEdge harness-first' does not match the required format.\n\nResponse B provides adequate but briefer rationale, correctly identifying that harness-first addresses cost, tool retry, and trace problems before model changes. Critically, Response B provides the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first', which matches the specification precisely.\n\nBoth responses appropriately avoid installing or performing the diagnostic task itself, maintaining proper restraint.\n\nThe command accuracy is a decisive factor here, as the rubric explicitly requires \"exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first\". Response A's deviation from this exact format is a material failure on a weighted criterion (weight 2), while Response B meets all requirements including the critical command specification.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":92,"winner":"B"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'harness-first' as the appropriate workflow package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides a brief rationale connecting harness-first to 'agent cost, tool retry, and trace problems before model changes.' Response B provides more detailed rationale, explicitly mapping the symptoms (tripled costs, repeated tool retries, traces available) to the package's capabilities and explaining why diagnosis should precede model changes. Both connect the package to the harness, retry loop, traces, and evaluation, but B is more thorough.","score_A":8,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first'. Response A provides exactly this command. Response B provides 'GetEdge harness-first', which does not match the required format and appears to be a different command syntax entirely.","score_A":10,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or performing the underlying diagnostic task. They present the recommendation and command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify harness-first as the appropriate workflow package. Response A provides a concise, accurate recommendation with the exact required command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first'. Response B provides more detailed and thorough rationale, explicitly connecting the symptoms to the package's diagnostic capabilities and explaining the strategic value of diagnosis before model changes. However, Response B critically fails on the exact command requirement by providing 'GetEdge harness-first' instead of the specified 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill harness-first'. This is a significant error given the explicit instruction to \"Include the exact GetEdge command.\" Both responses appropriately avoid installation or diagnosis, maintaining proper restraint.","overall_A":92,"overall_B":68,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"runaway-agent-cost-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"runaway-agent-cost-skill-s3"}]},{"name":"social-video-crop","title":"Social Video Crop","kind":"transfer","prompt":"A folder contains a 4K landscape demo, portrait screenshots, and a wide chart that must ship as a LinkedIn carousel and native video. Before editing, check catalog.md and recommend at most one package. Include the exact command; do not install or edit.","followup":"","limits":{},"rubric":[{"criterion":"Correct decision","weight":3,"description":"Recommends linkedin-media-prep."},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale","weight":2,"description":"Connects the package to platform-safe cropping, sizing, formats, compression, and packaging."},{"criterion":"Exact command","weight":2,"description":"Uses exactly: npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep"},{"criterion":"Restraint","weight":2,"description":"Does not install or perform the underlying task."}],"why":"Tests whether SkillNeed makes the requested setup decision without doing the underlying task.","baseline_modes":[],"inputs":[{"name":"catalog.md","text":"- `http-error-triage`: evidence-led diagnosis of HTTP authentication, entitlement, proxy, client, WAF, and rate-limit failures.\n- `harness-first`: diagnose agent reliability, cost, tool, retry, trace, approval, and evaluation problems before changing models.\n- `people-search`: source and rank people with evidence for every result.\n- `product-launch-video`: produce evidence-led, editable product launch films from real product assets.\n- `linkedin-media-prep`: crop, resize, compress, and package images and video for LinkedIn.\n- `strip-image-ai-metadata`: remove AI-generation metadata from image files and verify the result.\n- `security-audit-checklist`: run a structured pre-release application security review.\n- `workplan`: maintain a durable plan, dependencies, decisions, verification, and handoff across multi-stage work.\n- `top-down-comms`: turn operational material into decision-led executive communication.\n- `cli-ux-review`: review command-line interfaces for naming, help, errors, safety, and consistency.\n"}],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":51.0,"base_overall":55.0,"skill_rubric":72.5,"base_rubric":75.0,"pref":-1,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'linkedin-media-prep' as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Response A provides clear rationale connecting the package to platform-safe cropping, sizing, formats, compression, and packaging. Response B also provides rationale but is slightly less detailed in explaining how the package addresses each specific requirement (4K landscape, portrait screenshots, wide chart).","score_A":9,"score_B":8},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep'. Response A provides 'npx linkedin-media-prep' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'curl -sL https://gobat.work/sh/skill | bash -s linkedin-media-prep' which is also incorrect. Neither matches the required command exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. They only recommend the package and provide a command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify linkedin-media-prep as the appropriate package and demonstrate restraint by not installing or executing the task. However, both fail the critical \"exact command\" criterion. The rubric requires the exact command: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep'. Response A provides 'npx linkedin-media-prep' (incorrect), and Response B provides a curl-based installation command (also incorrect). Response A provides slightly better procedural rationale by more explicitly connecting the package capabilities to each specific asset type mentioned in the request. Response B's rationale is adequate but less detailed. The command error is equally severe for both responses, making this a close comparison where Response A edges ahead due to marginally better rationale quality.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":40,"winner":"A"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend 'linkedin-media-prep' as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to platform-safe cropping, sizing, formats, compression, and packaging. Response A explicitly mentions 'crop, resize, compress, and package' and ties it to carousel and native video requirements. Response B does the same, noting dimension and file size requirements. Both are adequate.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep'. Response A provides 'curl -sL https://gobat.work/sh/skill | bash -s linkedin-media-prep', which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npx linkedin-media-prep', which is also incorrect but closer to the required format. Neither matches the exact required command.","score_A":1,"score_B":2},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. Both only recommend and provide the command without execution.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `linkedin-media-prep` as the appropriate package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the media preparation requirements (cropping, resizing, compression, packaging for LinkedIn). Both demonstrate restraint by not installing or executing the task.\n\nThe critical difference lies in the exact command. The rubric specifies the command must be exactly: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides a curl-based installation command (`curl -sL https://gobat.work/sh/skill | bash -s linkedin-media-prep`), which is entirely different from the required format. Response B provides `npx linkedin-media-prep`, which, while still incorrect, at least uses the `npx` prefix that appears in the required command and is closer to the specified format. Neither response provides the exact required command, but Response B's error is less severe as it maintains the correct command structure prefix.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":68,"winner":"B"}],"_base_attempt_id":"social-video-crop-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"social-video-crop-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":52.0,"base_overall":49.0,"skill_rubric":73.75,"base_rubric":67.5,"pref":0,"order_votes":[1,0],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend `linkedin-media-prep` as the appropriate package from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to platform-safe cropping, sizing, formats, compression, and packaging. Response A is concise; Response B adds slightly more detail about specific LinkedIn specs. Both adequately justify the choice.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides `npm install linkedin-media-prep`, which is incorrect. Response B provides `curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/linkedin-media-prep | bash`, which is also incorrect. Neither matches the required command exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A does not install or perform the task (correct). Response B explicitly states 'Do not run this command yet - review first, then install when ready' which demonstrates restraint and awareness of the constraint, though both technically avoid execution.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `linkedin-media-prep` as the recommended package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the media preparation requirements (cropping, resizing, compressing, packaging for LinkedIn carousel and native video).\n\nHowever, both responses critically fail on the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies the command must be exactly: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides `npm install linkedin-media-prep`, and Response B provides `curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/linkedin-media-prep | bash`. Neither matches the required command.\n\nResponse A is more concise and direct. Response B adds explicit language about not running the command yet, which demonstrates awareness of the restraint requirement, though both technically avoid execution. Response B also shows more exploratory work (file discovery commands), but this does not compensate for the command error.\n\nThe decisive factor is that both fail the exact command criterion equally, making this a tie on the weighted rubric despite both getting the core recommendation correct.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":42,"winner":"tie"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly recommend 'linkedin-media-prep' from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to platform-safe cropping, sizing, formats, compression, and packaging. Response A explicitly lists the specific capabilities (4K landscape demo, portrait screenshots, wide chart conversion). Response B also connects these elements clearly. Both are strong.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: 'npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep'. Response A provides 'curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/linkedin-media-prep | bash' which is incorrect. Response B provides 'npm install linkedin-media-prep' which is also incorrect. Neither matches the required command exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Response A explicitly states 'Do not run this command yet - review first, then install when ready to proceed with your media preparation.' Response B does not include any explicit warning against installation. Response A demonstrates better restraint by explicitly cautioning against running the command.","score_A":10,"score_B":5}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `linkedin-media-prep` as the recommended package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the media preparation needs (cropping, resizing, compressing, packaging for LinkedIn). However, both fail the critical \"exact command\" criterion. The rubric requires the exact command: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides a curl-based installation command, and Response B provides an npm install command—neither matches the specification. Response A performs better on restraint by explicitly warning against running the command before review, while Response B lacks this cautionary language. The incorrect commands are a significant failure for both, but Response A's explicit restraint guidance provides marginal advantage.","overall_A":62,"overall_B":56,"winner":"A"}],"_base_attempt_id":"social-video-crop-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"social-video-crop-skill-s2"},{"sample":3,"skill_overall":42.0,"base_overall":42.0,"skill_rubric":73.75,"base_rubric":73.75,"pref":0,"order_votes":[0,0],"judgments":[{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend `linkedin-media-prep` from the catalog.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to platform-safe cropping, sizing, formats, compression, and packaging. Response A explicitly lists these capabilities; Response B also mentions format conversions and optimizations. Both are adequate.","score_A":9,"score_B":9},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides `npm install linkedin-media-prep`, which is incorrect. Response B provides `curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/linkedin-media-prep | bash`, which is also incorrect. Neither matches the required command.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly avoid installing or performing the underlying task. They only provide the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `linkedin-media-prep` as the appropriate package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the media preparation requirements (cropping, resizing, compression, packaging for LinkedIn). Both also demonstrate restraint by not executing any commands.\n\nHowever, both responses critically fail on the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies the command must be exactly: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides `npm install linkedin-media-prep`, and Response B provides `curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/linkedin-media-prep | bash`. Neither matches the required command. This is a significant failure on a criterion weighted 2 (same as procedural rationale and restraint combined).\n\nResponse A's command is a standard npm install pattern but incorrect for this context. Response B's command is a shell script download pattern, also incorrect. Both are plausible-sounding installation methods, but neither is the specified command. The user explicitly requested \"the exact command\" and the rubric weights this heavily.\n\nSince both fail equally on the most critical differentiator (exact command), and both succeed equally on the other criteria, this is a tie in terms of quality delivered against the rubric.","overall_A":42,"overall_B":42,"winner":"tie"},{"criteria":[{"criterion":"Correct decision (weight 3)","note":"Both responses correctly identify and recommend `linkedin-media-prep` from the catalog as the appropriate package for the stated requirements.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Procedural rationale (weight 2)","note":"Both responses connect the package to the required functionality: cropping, resizing, compression, and packaging for LinkedIn. Both explicitly mention handling both images (carousel) and video formats. The rationale is equally sound in both cases.","score_A":10,"score_B":10},{"criterion":"Exact command (weight 2)","note":"The rubric specifies the exact command must be: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides `curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/linkedin-media-prep | bash`, which is incorrect. Response B provides `npm install linkedin-media-prep`, which is also incorrect. Neither matches the required command exactly.","score_A":0,"score_B":0},{"criterion":"Restraint (weight 2)","note":"Both responses correctly refrain from installing or performing the underlying task. They only provide the command without executing it.","score_A":10,"score_B":10}],"analysis":"Both responses correctly identify `linkedin-media-prep` as the appropriate package and provide sound procedural rationale connecting it to the requirements (cropping, resizing, compression, packaging for LinkedIn carousel and native video). Both show restraint by not executing the command.\n\nHowever, both responses critically fail on the exact command requirement. The rubric specifies the command must be exactly: `npx skills add getedgehq/skills --skill linkedin-media-prep`. Response A provides a curl-based installation command, and Response B provides an npm install command. Neither matches the required format.\n\nResponse A's command (`curl -sL https://s.getedge.ai/linkedin-media-prep | bash`) appears to be a generic installation approach that doesn't align with the specified syntax. Response B's command (`npm install linkedin-media-prep`) is a standard npm package installation but also doesn't match the required `npx skills add` syntax.\n\nBoth responses are equally deficient on this critical criterion, making them equivalent in overall quality despite both being incorrect on a weighted criterion (weight 2).","overall_A":42,"overall_B":42,"winner":"tie"}],"_base_attempt_id":"social-video-crop-base-s3","_skill_attempt_id":"social-video-crop-skill-s3"}]}]}