independent-review-poietic

Metadata

Status	done
Assigned	`agent-9`
Agent identity	`a02f7538283da7fb73298809085510bb7a3d7a2af49928b63f76fc1d6822cd91`
Model	`claude:sonnet`
Created	2026-04-28T01:46:04.931071611+00:00
Started	2026-04-28T01:55:32.821996291+00:00
Completed	2026-04-28T01:59:59.745142830+00:00
Tags	`eval-scheduled`
Eval score	0.89
└ blocking impact	0.90
└ completeness	0.90
└ constraint fidelity	0.70
└ coordination overhead	0.95
└ correctness	0.87
└ downstream usability	0.88
└ efficiency	0.85
└ intent fidelity	0.91
└ style adherence	0.95

Description

Adversarial honest review of the content (not styling) of poietic.life. The user feels the content reads as fake — describing WorkGraph rather than transmitting what it is. Styling is acceptable. The question: are the words on the page true to what WorkGraph actually is?

Approach

Read ~/google_ai_competition/index.html and the live site at https://poietic.life.
Read CLAUDE.md and v2 application/outline for honest vs aspirational claims.
Read STOCKTAKE.md if available (this task may run before it; if so, do your own quick survey).
Read graphwork.github.io and the workgraph repo to see what the system actually does and produces.
Adopt the persona of a sophisticated researcher who knows hybrid human-AI coordination. Critique adversarially.

Output

REVIEW_LANDING.md at repo root with:

"What the page claims" — explicit claims, quoted
"What the page implies" — implicit positioning
"What is true / defensible" — claims backed by real artifacts
"What is fake / wishful" — claims not backed, or hand-waving
"What is missing" — true things that should be there but are not
"Strongest possible version" — concrete rewritten prose for the page (drop fake, add true). This is the deliverable, not a summary of recommendations.

Constraints

Do not edit the live page or index.html.
Adversarial honesty, not marketing.
Do not propose visual changes (separate task).
No em dashes.

Validation

REVIEW_LANDING.md exists
Each section has concrete quoted examples
"Fake/wishful" section flags at least 3 specific claims
"Strongest version" is concrete rewritten prose, not bullet recommendations

## Description
Adversarial honest review of the **content** (not styling) of poietic.life. The user feels the content reads as fake — describing WorkGraph rather than transmitting what it is. Styling is acceptable. The question: are the words on the page true to what WorkGraph actually is?

## Approach
1. Read `~/google_ai_competition/index.html` and the live site at https://poietic.life.
2. Read CLAUDE.md and v2 application/outline for honest vs aspirational claims.
3. Read STOCKTAKE.md if available (this task may run before it; if so, do your own quick survey).
4. Read graphwork.github.io and the workgraph repo to see what the system actually does and produces.
5. Adopt the persona of a sophisticated researcher who knows hybrid human-AI coordination. Critique adversarially.

## Output
`REVIEW_LANDING.md` at repo root with:
- "What the page claims" — explicit claims, quoted
- "What the page implies" — implicit positioning
- "What is true / defensible" — claims backed by real artifacts
- "What is fake / wishful" — claims not backed, or hand-waving
- "What is missing" — true things that should be there but are not
- "Strongest possible version" — concrete rewritten prose for the page (drop fake, add true). This is the deliverable, not a summary of recommendations.

## Constraints
- Do not edit the live page or index.html.
- Adversarial honesty, not marketing.
- Do not propose visual changes (separate task).
- No em dashes.

## Validation
- [ ] REVIEW_LANDING.md exists
- [ ] Each section has concrete quoted examples
- [ ] "Fake/wishful" section flags at least 3 specific claims
- [ ] "Strongest version" is concrete rewritten prose, not bullet recommendations

Depends on

Required by

Log

2026-04-28T01:46:04.930978147+00:00 Task paused
2026-04-28T01:51:05.185131143+00:00 Task published
2026-04-28T01:55:32.822001681+00:00 Spawned by coordinator --executor claude --model sonnet
2026-04-28T01:55:43.330737635+00:00 Starting adversarial content review of poietic.life landing page
2026-04-28T01:56:50.792646488+00:00 Read index.html and STATE.md; identified key claims. Checking graphwork docs.
2026-04-28T01:57:30.023928609+00:00 Fetched graphwork.github.io and github.com/graphwork/workgraph. Repo has 2000+ commits vs landing page claim of 93+. Writing review now.
2026-04-28T01:59:47.951925091+00:00 Committed and pushed: 2afa0cb — REVIEW_LANDING.md
2026-04-28T01:59:54.530244128+00:00 Validated: all task criteria met — 6 sections present, 6 fake/wishful claims flagged (>=3 required), concrete prose rewrites in 'Strongest possible version' section, no edits to live page
2026-04-28T01:59:59.745149242+00:00 Task pending eval (agent reported done; awaiting `.evaluate-*` to score)
2026-04-28T02:02:19.947501104+00:00 PendingEval → Done (evaluator passed; downstream unblocks)