# Evals — market-research

`cases.yaml` holds three groups for this skill's router and capability. Run them against whatever eval harness the repo provides, or check by hand: feed each `should_trigger` prompt to the router and confirm it selects `market-research` (including the non-obvious ones — cross-checking an existing TAM, the top-down-vs-bottom-up method choice, and the Spanish/Catalan sizing asks); feed each `should_not_trigger` prompt and confirm it routes to the named sibling (`competitor-watch` for a named-rival dossier, `lead-gen` for a named account list, `pitch-deck` for the slide, `financial-model` for the revenue model, `forecasting` for a single-series forecast) and not here — these encode the boundaries that bleed. The `capability` case is graded against its `must_include` rubric on an actual generated memo for the dental-clinic scenario: tick each line (TAM/SAM/SOM with nesting, both methods plus a convergence note, a segment table with one beachhead, a demand signal that respects the Google-Trends-is-relative caveat, a dated sources table, derived rather than assumed SAM/SOM, no competitor dossier, and an explicit hand-off). Pair the capability grade with `scripts/verify.sh` against the generated memo file to confirm the artifact actually holds up — TAM/SAM/SOM nesting, both-methods-plus-convergence, and dated sources — where the rubric judges research quality and verify.sh judges structural integrity. No automated harness is assumed beyond reading the prompts and checking routing plus the rubric.
