Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/93e74d6e32162155.
--- name: taste-engine description: Turn subjective quality intent into executable hard gates, weighted rubrics, exemplars, anti-exemplars, blind comparison, and independent judge evidence. Use for high-value artifacts where correctness alone is insufficient. --- # Taste Engine ## Outcome Create a domain-specific Taste Profile and an evaluation loop that can reject polished mediocrity without pretending subjective judgment is deterministic. ## Use this skill when - A high-value artifact must be persuasive, elegant, clear, resonant, or production-ready. - “Premium,” “beautiful,” “world-class,” or similar intent needs an executable definition. - Multiple candidates can be compared. - A winning example should become reusable preference memory. Do not use a taste rubric as a substitute for factual, security, accessibility, or artifact-native checks. ## Procedure 1. Identify the judgment context. - Name the artifact type, audience, decision, medium, production constraints, and what failure costs. 2. Write hard rejection gates. - Encode failures that invalidate an artifact regardless of polish. - Keep factual fabrication, unusable output, accessibility failure, and broken production constraints outside weighted averaging. 3. Define weighted dimensions. - Use observable descriptions of excellence and failure. - Make weights reflect the use case rather than generic aesthetic preference. - Confirm weights total approximately 1.0. 4. Ground the rubric. - Add reference exemplars and explain why each wins. - Add anti-exemplars and name the failure pattern. - Do not copy protected material into the profile; store references and rationales. 5. Generate candidates only when diversity is useful. - Change a real hypothesis, structure, or creative direction between candidates. - Avoid cosmetic variations that create fake choice. 6. Evaluate in layers. - Run deterministic artifact checks. - Use blind pairwise comparison where possible. - Add a domain critic and adversarial reviewer for consequential work. - Keep the producer from being the sole required judge. 7. Synthesize. - Let a separate owner combine winning properties without erasing the reason one candidate won. 8. Record preference evidence. - Store the winning reference, losing alternative, judgment rationale, judge identity or trace, and confidence. - Mark unrun or non-independent judging as pending. ## Evidence rules - A judge result counts only when the evidence identifies it as producer-independent. - Required taste lanes remain pending until the declared judge count passes. - Taste cannot override a failed hard gate. - Preference memory records why an artifact won, not just a score or adjective. ## Return Return the Taste Profile, candidate strategy, deterministic gates, judge plan, Evidence Receipt status, winning rationale, and unresolved disagreement.