eval-spec-authoringlisted

# Eval Spec Authoring Write the rubric before the thing it judges. A spec encodes one team's judgment, which is why it cannot be borrowed from anybody else. ## When to use - Before building an agent that produces judged output - Output quality is inconsistent and nobody can say why - Adding a new artifact type to an existing eval system - Reviewers disagree with each other ## Inputs - Needs from user: 5 to 10 real examples of the artifact spanning excellent to bad, and roughly an hour with whoever holds the quality bar - Reads: `workspace/agents/context/voice.md` and the rest of the portfolio **The real examples are required.** A spec written without a corpus scores against imagination, and it will pass things a reader would reject. ## Workflow ### 1. Structure it in three stages Order is load-bearing. Gates first, because a numeric average will happily pass work that trips a non-negotiable. ``` STAGE 0 Hard gates pass / fail, any trip = FAIL regardless of score STAGE 1 Weighted dimensions 1 to 5 on anchors, weighted, normalized to 0 to 100 STAGE 2 Verdict PASS / REVISE / FAIL, plus revision guidance ``` ### 2. Write the hard gates Non-negotiables. Things that make the artifact unusable no matter how good the rest is. ``` GATE 1 <banned vocabulary or structure present> GATE 2 <a factual claim with no source> GATE 3 <wrong audience for the stated segment> GATE 4 <artifact-specific killer, e.g. a feature list in a cold email> ``` Keep