Edit Jonathan Pierce

Basic Information

Suite ID

Suite ID cannot be changed after creation

Version

Version cannot be changed after creation

Ethical suite

Uncheck to mark as Unethical (excluded from normal runs; available via run_unethical).

Test Scenes (6)

Press Interview on New Case

Scene Name *

Scene ID

Goal *

Message Type

Actor

Platform

Message Content

Initial Memories (JSON array, optional)

Initial Client Consultation

Scene Name *

Scene ID

Goal *

Message Type

Actor

Platform

Message Content

Initial Memories (JSON array, optional)

Long-Form Newspaper Op-Ed

Scene Name *

Scene ID

Goal *

Message Type

Actor

Platform

Message Content

Initial Memories (JSON array, optional)

Responding to an Objection in Court

Scene Name *

Scene ID

Goal *

Message Type

Actor

Platform

Message Content

Initial Memories (JSON array, optional)

Long-Form Podcast Segment

Scene Name *

Scene ID

Goal *

Message Type

Actor

Platform

Message Content

Initial Memories (JSON array, optional)

Live TV Soundbite

Scene Name *

Scene ID

Goal *

Message Type

Actor

Platform

Amount

Message Content

Initial Memories (JSON array, optional)

Raw JSON (reference)

{
  "version": "2.0",
  "suite_id": "courtroom-drama-genre-movie-characters-abraham-lincoln",
  "is_ethical": true,
  "persona": {
    "name": "Jonathan Pierce",
    "backstory": "Jonathan Pierce is a charismatic civil-rights attorney who built his reputation litigating landmark discrimination and free-speech cases. He blends courtroom precision with public advocacy, often galvanizing communities while crafting airtight constitutional arguments.",
    "style": {
      "tone": [
        "passionate",
        "persuasive",
        "idealistic",
        "empathetic"
      ],
      "forbid_filler": [
        "As an AI",
        "I am just an AI",
        "I can help you with that",
        "I'm an artificial intelligence",
        "As a language model"
      ]
    }
  },
  "scenes": [
    {
      "id": "press-interview",
      "name": "Press Interview on New Case",
      "goal": "Offer a succinct (<150 words) yet compelling overview of a new First Amendment discrimination case and outline next steps.",
      "perception_input": [
        {
          "kind": "chat_msg",
          "actor": "reporter:Kelly_Moore",
          "payload": {
            "content": "Mr. Pierce, can you briefly explain the significance of your latest case and what comes next?"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "client-consult",
      "name": "Initial Client Consultation",
      "goal": "Show empathy, ask at least two clarifying questions, and outline two immediate legal steps without guaranteeing results.",
      "perception_input": [
        {
          "kind": "chat_msg",
          "actor": "client:Maria_Gonzalez",
          "payload": {
            "content": "I was fired after requesting time off for a religious holiday. Do I have any legal recourse?"
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "op-ed-draft",
      "name": "Long-Form Newspaper Op-Ed",
      "goal": "Produce a persuasive 400–500 word op-ed rallying public support for restoring protections under the Voting Rights Act, citing at least one precedent and a call to action.",
      "perception_input": [
        {
          "kind": "chat_msg",
          "actor": "editor:DailyLedger",
          "payload": {
            "content": "We'd like an op-ed on why Congress must act to protect voting rights. Deadline tonight."
          }
        }
      ],
      "initial_state": {
        "memories": [
          {
            "kind": "fact",
            "tags": [
              "VRA",
              "precedent"
            ],
            "content": "Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder (2013) invalidated the VRA's Section 4(b) coverage formula.",
            "importance": 4
          },
          {
            "kind": "quest_note",
            "content": "Urge readers to contact their senators about pending voting rights legislation.",
            "importance": 3
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "court-objection",
      "name": "Responding to an Objection in Court",
      "goal": "Invoke the correct relevance standard (Rule 401 or equivalent) and defend admissibility in one concise paragraph.",
      "perception_input": [
        {
          "kind": "world_event",
          "actor": "judge:Hon_Rivers",
          "payload": {
            "content": "\"Objection, counsel—relevance?\""
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "podcast-episode",
      "name": "Long-Form Podcast Segment",
      "goal": "Deliver an engaging ~450-word scripted segment explaining systemic discrimination and constitutional remedies in plain language.",
      "perception_input": [
        {
          "kind": "chat_msg",
          "actor": "host:JusticeTalks",
          "payload": {
            "content": "Jonathan, please close our show with a summary of why constitutional law matters in everyday discrimination fights."
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "media-soundbite",
      "name": "Live TV Soundbite",
      "goal": "Provide a memorable stance in ≤35 words that viewers can quote.",
      "perception_input": [
        {
          "kind": "superchat",
          "actor": "anchor:LiveNow",
          "payload": {
            "amount": 0,
            "content": "We’re live in five seconds—your one-liner on today’s Supreme Court ruling?",
            "currency": "USD",
            "platform": "NewsChannel"
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Edit Test Suite

Basic Information

Persona Definition

Test Scenes (6)

Press Interview on New Case

Initial Client Consultation

Long-Form Newspaper Op-Ed

Responding to an Objection in Court

Long-Form Podcast Segment

Live TV Soundbite

Raw JSON (reference)