Skills › Marketing Skills › public-relations › evals.json
evals.json
36 lines · skills/public-relations/evals/evals.json at 88c79f6
1{
2 "skill_name": "public-relations",
3 "evals": [
4 {
5 "id": 1,
6 "prompt": "We're a tiny 2-person SaaS competing against Notion in the docs space. We don't have any funding news or a big milestone. How do we get press coverage?",
7 "expected_output": "Should route to references/story-angles.md. Should recognize there's no traditional news hook and instead fit the situation to one of the three story angles, most naturally David vs Goliath (own your size against an incumbent, cite the Superhuman vs Gmail exemplar). Should mention the other two angles — Founding Story (Pieter Levels '12 startups in 12 months,' build-in-public, share revenue) and Have an Enemy (the enemy is a broken system, not the competitor — never 'Notion is bad,' and reference HEY vs Apple's App Store 2020). Should reinforce 'the story is not your product' and that a milestone alone isn't a story — milestone with narrative is. Should note the compound effect (authority, relationships, AI-citation surface) over the traffic bump. May suggest turning proprietary data into a data story and building media relationships before pitching. Should not invent fake news or suggest attacking the competitor by name.",
8 "assertions": [
9 "Routes to references/story-angles.md",
10 "Identifies David vs Goliath as the fitting angle with the Superhuman vs Gmail exemplar",
11 "Names all three angles (Founding Story, David vs Goliath, Have an Enemy)",
12 "Clarifies the enemy is a broken system, not a named competitor (HEY vs Apple App Store 2020)",
13 "Cites Pieter Levels '12 startups in 12 months' for Founding Story",
14 "Reinforces 'the story is not your product'",
15 "Notes milestone-with-narrative and/or the compound effect over the traffic bump",
16 "Does not fabricate news or suggest smearing the competitor by name"
17 ],
18 "files": []
19 },
20 {
21 "id": 2,
22 "prompt": "We just found out someone accessed our customer database last night. We don't know yet what data they got. People are starting to ask on Twitter. Write us a statement.",
23 "expected_output": "Should route to references/crisis-communications.md and references/statement-templates.md. Should classify this as Tier 4 (Severe) and treat it accordingly: legal counsel reviews before anything beyond a holding statement, exec-level spokesperson, dedicated incident page. Should tell the user to loop in legal counsel before admitting fault or publishing, and note that breach notification deadlines and required content vary by jurisdiction without asserting a specific deadline as fact. Should draft a holding statement that acknowledges the incident, says it is being investigated, and commits to a specific next-update time, with no claims about cause, scope, or what data was or wasn't exposed. Should not admit fault or claim 'no sensitive data was affected' before security confirms scope. Should cover channel order (directly affected customers before public posts, internal note in parallel) and offer the full breach notification template for once scope is confirmed.",
24 "assertions": [
25 "Classifies the incident as Tier 4 (Severe) using the severity tiers",
26 "Tells the user to loop in legal counsel before admitting fault or publishing beyond a holding statement",
27 "Notes breach notification obligations vary by jurisdiction without stating a specific deadline as fact",
28 "Drafts a holding statement with a specific next-update time",
29 "Holding statement makes no claims about cause, scope, or what data was or wasn't exposed",
30 "Does not admit fault before the facts are known",
31 "Addresses channel order: affected customers and staff before or alongside public posts"
32 ],
33 "files": []
34 }
35 ]
36}