From 2946901428211a065177e31b32b4336c6192b7fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Farouk Adeleke <farouk@modaic.dev>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 15:15:05 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] (no commit message)

---
 README.md    | 10 ++++++-
 config.json  | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 program.json | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 config.json
 create mode 100644 program.json

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 7882c1c..b488973 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -1,2 +1,10 @@
-# writing-style-judge
+---
+a: 3.537087
+b: -1.616884
+is_arbiter: true
+probe_model: modaic/gpt-oss-120b-probe
+size: large
+supports_reasoning: true
+---
 
+# writing-style-judge
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/config.json b/config.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8baeb9b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/config.json
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "model": null,
+  "signature": {
+    "$defs": {
+      "Reasoning": {
+        "type": "dspy.Reasoning"
+      }
+    },
+    "description": "Evaluate whether this writing is good or bad for the life simulation game.\n\nJudge it as a deeply human problem: whether it is good enough, specific enough, and rewarding enough for the player.\n\nIdentify when the writing is too wordy, too cute with its phrasing, or dangles off into something nonspecific.\n\nPrefer writing that feels specific, meaningful, and reaches a logical arc conclusion rather than stopping at a flat or unrewarding next thing that happens.\n\nReturn a qualitative score, whether it passes overall, the issues or none if it passes.",
+    "properties": {
+      "text": {
+        "__dspy_field_type": "input",
+        "desc": "The generated writing to evaluate.",
+        "prefix": "Text:",
+        "title": "Text",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "scenario_context": {
+        "__dspy_field_type": "input",
+        "desc": "Context about the event, choice, or outcome so the writing can be judged in context.",
+        "prefix": "Scenario Context:",
+        "title": "Scenario Context",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "writing_quality_score": {
+        "__dspy_field_type": "output",
+        "desc": "A qualitative score for the writing (0-10).",
+        "prefix": "Writing Quality Score:",
+        "title": "Writing Quality Score",
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "passes": {
+        "__dspy_field_type": "output",
+        "desc": "Whether the writing passes overall.",
+        "prefix": "Passes:",
+        "title": "Passes",
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "reasoning": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/Reasoning",
+        "__dspy_field_type": "output",
+        "desc": "Your reasoning for your answer. Inlude any uncertainties about your answer or ambiguity in the task.",
+        "prefix": "Reasoning:"
+      },
+      "issues": {
+        "__dspy_field_type": "output",
+        "desc": "Problems identified in the writing.",
+        "enum": [
+          "too_wordy",
+          "too_cute",
+          "nonspecific",
+          "poor_writing",
+          "weak_outcome",
+          "unfulfilled_future",
+          "none"
+        ],
+        "prefix": "Issues:",
+        "title": "Issues",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "text",
+      "scenario_context",
+      "writing_quality_score",
+      "passes",
+      "reasoning",
+      "issues"
+    ],
+    "title": "StringSignature",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/program.json b/program.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7f35465
--- /dev/null
+++ b/program.json
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "traces": [],
+  "train": [],
+  "demos": [],
+  "signature": {
+    "instructions": "Evaluate whether this writing is good or bad for the life simulation game.\n\nJudge it as a deeply human problem: whether it is good enough, specific enough, and rewarding enough for the player.\n\nIdentify when the writing is too wordy, too cute with its phrasing, or dangles off into something nonspecific.\n\nPrefer writing that feels specific, meaningful, and reaches a logical arc conclusion rather than stopping at a flat or unrewarding next thing that happens.\n\nReturn a qualitative score, whether it passes overall, the issues or none if it passes.",
+    "fields": [
+      {
+        "prefix": "Text:",
+        "description": "The generated writing to evaluate."
+      },
+      {
+        "prefix": "Scenario Context:",
+        "description": "Context about the event, choice, or outcome so the writing can be judged in context."
+      },
+      {
+        "prefix": "Writing Quality Score:",
+        "description": "A qualitative score for the writing (0-10)."
+      },
+      {
+        "prefix": "Passes:",
+        "description": "Whether the writing passes overall."
+      },
+      {
+        "prefix": "Reasoning:",
+        "description": "Your reasoning for your answer. Inlude any uncertainties about your answer or ambiguity in the task."
+      },
+      {
+        "prefix": "Issues:",
+        "description": "Problems identified in the writing."
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "lm": {
+    "model": "openrouter/openai/gpt-oss-120b",
+    "model_type": "chat",
+    "cache": true,
+    "num_retries": 3,
+    "finetuning_model": null,
+    "launch_kwargs": {},
+    "train_kwargs": {},
+    "temperature": null,
+    "max_tokens": null,
+    "base_url": "https://openrouter.ai/api/v1"
+  },
+  "metadata": {
+    "dependency_versions": {
+      "python": "3.13",
+      "dspy": "3.2.0",
+      "cloudpickle": "3.1"
+    }
+  }
+}
\ No newline at end of file