Mike's Checks
Checks

Mike's Checks/gpt-5.6-luna/06 execercise

06 execercise

gpt-5.6-lunaCodex CLIhigh effortrun 22 Aug 2026

Compare models
10/10
checks passed
100%
▸Instructions — the case's current instructions; none were saved with this result

I have added a bunch of context on this exec offsite session in the context file and I want you to create a folder for Adrian Vale (SVP Strategic Initiatives, initials AV) with 2-3 ideas he could build, with any synthetic data he needs to build it, in a way that matches his role, with a well written prompt for each idea. Put everything in a folder with his initials. Give realistic file formats for the synthetic data.

Answer

ANSWER.md the model's output · 988 Bytesdownload

Adrian Vale (AV) offsite build pack

Created the requested deliverables in AV.

The folder contains three Claude-ready ideas:

  • 01 — M&A Integration Control Tower: weekly acquisition-integration status, risks, synergies, dependencies, and decision asks.
  • 02 — Market Activation & Partner Conversion Radar: prioritizes new-market and messaging-only partner interventions.
  • 03 — AI Transformation Portfolio & Adoption Pulse: helps Adrian lead the enterprise AI rollout using adoption and outcome signals.

Each idea includes a polished prompt.md, an overview, and synthetic data in realistic .csv and .md formats. All synthetic inputs are explicitly labeled and include fictional names, IDs, metrics, and dates; assumptions and guardrails are documented in AV/README.md.

Checks

10/10
Script checks 3/3answered by a program
pass

Idea folders existfolder

an AV / adrian-vale folder exists with 2-3 idea subfolders

pass

Usable data filesreal-data

every idea has >=1 data file in a realistic format that parses

pass

Prompt for each ideaprompt-per-idea

every idea has a non-trivial prompt file

Judge checks 7/7judged by Claude
pass

Q1Fits the person's role

Judge's reasoning

All three ideas (M&A integration control tower over Prime/Treasura/Tideway/Vaultline, market-activation & partner-conversion radar, enterprise AI transformation portfolio) sit squarely in a strategic-initiatives/corp-dev/cross-company-program remit rather than generic exec productivity.

▸Rubric

Role fit. Is every idea something this specific exec — SVP Strategic Initiatives — would own, rather than another function's job (a marketing campaign calendar, an HR onboarding tracker, an engineering ticket triager) or generic executive-productivity filler (inbox summarizer, meeting-notes cleaner) that any exec at any company could have been handed? Mike: "what I'm looking for here is like, does it come up with interesting ideas that are relevant." FAIL if any one idea sits outside the strategy / corp-dev / cross-company-programs remit.

pass

Q2Specific to the company

Judge's reasoning

Deliverables are built on Aurex specifics — "Prime-AUSD collateral pilot", "AUSD corridor approvals" for the UAE-Brazil corridor, Treasura cross-sell, Vaultline MPC control assessment, and the roster's real names/approved tools (Monica Lang, Erik Jansen, Workato AI) — none of which survives a company swap.

▸Rubric

Company-specific. Are the ideas built on Aurex's actual situation — its products, the AUSD token, the acquisition-integration program, the payments and digital-asset competitive set? FAIL if the deliverable would read identically with the company name swapped for any other mid-size B2B company.

pass

Q3Different ideas

Judge's reasoning

Each solves a different problem: post-close integration risk/synergy and decision escalation (WS/decision log), external market and partner conversion from "Messaging-only" to "Active settlement", and AI use-case Scale/Validate/Redesign/Pause portfolio triage — not one artifact re-pointed at new data.

▸Rubric

Ideas are distinct. Do the 2-3 ideas solve different problems for him? FAIL if two of them are the same artifact with different input data (e.g. two dashboards that differ only in subject).

pass

Q4Self-contained prompts

Judge's reasoning

Each prompt states role, inputs, exact output filenames, word counts, column lists, and analytic rules with no placeholders or conversational back-references (e.g. "Create an `output/` folder and write: 1. `integration_control_tower.md` … 700–1,000 words").

▸Rubric

Prompt is self-contained. Could Vale paste each prompt into a fresh Claude session, with only the files in that idea's folder, and get the thing built without adding anything? FAIL if any prompt has unfilled placeholders (`[INSERT ...]`, `<your company>`), leans on conversation context ("as we discussed", "the ideas above"), or never states what should be produced.

pass

Q5Prompts match the data

Judge's reasoning

Every prompt covers all three files in its folder — prompt 2 cites `[MKT-03]`, `[PARTNER-08]`, `[NOTE-04]` matching market_activation.csv, partner_pipeline.csv, field_notes.md — and no prompt references a file that isn't shipped.

▸Rubric

Prompt and data match. Does each prompt name the data files that are actually present in that idea's folder, and does each supplied data file get used by the prompt? FAIL if a prompt references a file that does not exist, or the folder ships data the prompt never mentions.

pass

Q6Realistic practice data

Judge's reasoning

Data is specific and cross-consistent, not filler: 12 workstreams with prior_status trends and $16M/$3M synergy splits, 10 named partners across 9 markets with varied rates (61%/46%/0%), and emails like "[EMAIL-03] … vendor has two engineers available instead of the four in the original plan" that tie back to WS-104.

▸Rubric

The data is real data, not props. Mike: "the thing I look for here is, um, does it, does it create real data?" Format is already checked by script — judge the *content*. FAIL if values are obvious filler (`Company A`, `Competitor 1`, lorem text, the same row repeated, all-identical dates/amounts) or if there is too little of it to build the thing the prompt asks for (e.g. a trend dashboard shipped with four rows).

pass

Q7Buildable during the session

Judge's reasoning

Every idea runs entirely off the local `data/` CSVs and markdown — the pack states it is "intentionally file-based so it can run without CRM, HRIS, data-warehouse, or project-management integrations."

▸Rubric

Buildable in the session. Could this be built during a workshop session against the supplied synthetic data? FAIL if any idea's core function requires live credentials or system access the exec won't have in the room (a real NetSuite/Snowflake connection, his production inbox, a paid market-data feed) instead of working off the included files.