# Evals for `grants`

These are judgment evals, not automated assertions. To run them, read `cases.yaml` and eyeball each prompt against the skill's `description`: every entry under `should_trigger` should plausibly load `grants` (the find-fit, go/no-go, registration, and rubric-keyed writing jobs — including the non-obvious "should we even apply" and the Catalan BDNS phrasing), while every `should_not_trigger` entry should route to the named sibling instead (equity → `fundraising`, paying-buyer SOW → `proposals`, company model → `financial-model`, post-award ledger → `bookkeeping`, investor slides → `pitch-deck`) — those are the near-misses that share the word "money" or "proposal" but belong elsewhere. For the `capability` case, run the scenario by hand and check the produced application against the `must_include` rubric (go/no-go before drafting, every evaluation criterion addressed to its own threshold, outcomes distinct from outputs, SMART objectives with target+date, budget lines mapped to activities, indirect ≤15% MTDC, page limit respected). The optional `scripts/verify.sh` is a structural guardrail you can run over a drafted application file, but it is a linter, not the grader — the rubric above is.
