Drive Room Temperature from your own code

{ "ok": true,  "data":  { ... } }
{ "ok": false, "error": { "code": "...", "message": "...", "status": 402, "details": { ... } } }

{"task": "heat", "title": "...", "checks": {"insults": false, "vague": false, "familiar": true},
 "verdict": "cheap_heat | too_vague | lukewarm | genuinely_spicy", "verdict_reason": "...", "heat": 1,
 "everyone_says": "...", "stand": [{"step": "stake", "mark": "strong | weak | missing", "note": "..."}, ...],
 "hotter": [{"heat": 2, "take": "..."}, {"heat": 3, "take": "..."}, {"heat": 4, "take": "..."}],
 "steelman": "...", "check_first": ["..."], "opener": "..."}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "take": "Unpopular opinion: people care more about fitting in than about being right.",
 "why": "Watch any group pick a place to eat - everyone just goes along with the first suggestion.",
 "where": "dinner",
 "table": "few",
 "page_facts": "hedges | none\nsweeping_words | none\nnames_people | none\ninsult_words | none\nfamiliar_match | people care more about belonging than truth; labelled as an unpopular opinion or hot take\nhas_reason | yes\nword_count | 12\npage_guess | lukewarm - from word lists only, a hint that can be wrong\nverdict_rule | check in order and stop at the first that fits: 1) cheap_heat when insults is true; 2) too_vague when vague is true; 3) lukewarm when familiar is true; 4) otherwise genuinely_spicy"
}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "title": "Mild Fitting-In Hot Sauce",
 "checks": {
  "insults": false,
  "vague": false,
  "familiar": true
 },
 "verdict": "lukewarm",
 "verdict_reason": "This matches the common idea that people value fitting in over being right, so most people already agree rather than disagree.",
 "heat": 1,
 "everyone_says": "People often go along with the group to avoid standing out, even when they see things differently.",
 "stand": [
  {
   "step": "stake",
   "mark": "weak",
   "note": "Labeled as an 'unpopular opinion' rather than stated as a plain belief."
  },
  {
   "step": "target",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "Takes aim at a common tendency, prioritizing fitting in, not at any specific person."
  },
  {
   "step": "argue",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "Backs it with a concrete example: groups settling on the first suggestion for where to eat."
  },
  {
   "step": "nod",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "Doesn't acknowledge any counterpoint yet, so the reply offers the other side's best point instead."
  },
  {
   "step": "declare",
   "mark": "weak",
   "note": "One plain sentence, but the opening label keeps it from landing as a flat declaration."
  }
 ],
 "hotter": [
  {
   "heat": 2,
   "take": "In most groups, going along with the first suggestion matters more than actually finding the better choice."
  },
  {
   "heat": 3,
   "take": "People would rather eat somewhere worse than be the one who speaks up against the first suggestion."
  },
  {
   "heat": 4,
   "take": "Nobody actually wants the best option at dinner; they want to avoid being the person who argued for it."
  }
 ],
 "steelman": "Going along with the group isn't always avoiding truth, sometimes it's just efficient, since not every small decision is worth a fight.",
 "check_first": [],
 "opener": "Next time we pick where to eat, want to actually debate the options instead of just agreeing right away?"
}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "take": "Honestly I think things are just kind of worse now, you know?",
 "why": "not given",
 "where": "family",
 "table": "unsure",
 "page_facts": "hedges | honestly, i think, kind of, you know\nsweeping_words | none\nnames_people | none\ninsult_words | none\nfamiliar_match | none\nhas_reason | no; the take ends in a question mark\nword_count | 12\npage_guess | too_vague - from word lists only, a hint that can be wrong\nverdict_rule | check in order and stop at the first that fits: 1) cheap_heat when insults is true; 2) too_vague when vague is true; 3) lukewarm when familiar is true; 4) otherwise genuinely_spicy"
}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "title": "Mystery Mild Sauce",
 "checks": {
  "insults": false,
  "vague": true,
  "familiar": false
 },
 "verdict": "too_vague",
 "verdict_reason": "The take only describes a mood with no specific claim, so there's nothing yet for anyone to actually agree or disagree with.",
 "heat": 1,
 "everyone_says": "Not everything about today feels like progress, and some things used to feel better.",
 "stand": [
  {
   "step": "stake",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "It's only a mood here, too vague yet to count as a real position."
  },
  {
   "step": "target",
   "mark": "weak",
   "note": "It gestures at 'things' in general rather than any one idea or habit."
  },
  {
   "step": "argue",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "No reason is given for why things feel worse."
  },
  {
   "step": "nod",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "The take doesn't acknowledge any other view yet."
  },
  {
   "step": "declare",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "It's wrapped in hedges and stays too vague to land as a clear claim."
  }
 ],
 "hotter": [
  {
   "heat": 2,
   "take": "[The specific thing] has gotten worse, and it's worth saying so instead of staying quiet about it."
  },
  {
   "heat": 3,
   "take": "[The specific thing] has clearly gotten worse, and going along like it hasn't is the easy way out."
  },
  {
   "heat": 4,
   "take": "[The specific thing] has gotten worse, and pretending otherwise is the real mistake."
  }
 ],
 "steelman": "Without a specific claim, there's nothing solid to disagree with - you could mean almost anything, so it's hard to say you're wrong.",
 "check_first": [],
 "opener": "What's the one thing that's actually changed the most for you?"
}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "take": "People who send voice notes are lazy and rude.",
 "why": "I have to stop what I'm doing to listen, and I can't skim a voice note the way I skim a text.",
 "where": "group_chat",
 "table": "half",
 "page_facts": "hedges | none\nsweeping_words | none\nnames_people | people who\ninsult_words | lazy, rude\nfamiliar_match | none\nhas_reason | yes\nword_count | 9\npage_guess | cheap_heat - from word lists only, a hint that can be wrong\nverdict_rule | check in order and stop at the first that fits: 1) cheap_heat when insults is true; 2) too_vague when vague is true; 3) lukewarm when familiar is true; 4) otherwise genuinely_spicy"
}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "title": "Drop-Everything Hot Sauce",
 "checks": {
  "insults": true,
  "vague": false,
  "familiar": false
 },
 "verdict": "cheap_heat",
 "verdict_reason": "Calling people lazy and rude targets who they are instead of the habit of voice notes, which makes this cheap heat rather than a real argument.",
 "heat": 3,
 "everyone_says": "Voice notes can be annoying because you can't skim them like a text.",
 "stand": [
  {
   "step": "stake",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "You state it plainly as your own view, not hidden behind a label or hedge."
  },
  {
   "step": "target",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "It aims at people's character instead of the habit itself."
  },
  {
   "step": "argue",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "You give a concrete reason: you must stop and can't skim it like text."
  },
  {
   "step": "nod",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "You don't acknowledge any upside to voice notes here."
  },
  {
   "step": "declare",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "It's one plain, unhedged sentence that states the view directly."
  }
 ],
 "hotter": [
  {
   "heat": 2,
   "take": "Sending a voice note instead of a text puts the sender's convenience ahead of the time it takes the listener to stop and pay attention."
  },
  {
   "heat": 3,
   "take": "A message that can't be skimmed and forces someone else to drop what they're doing to listen is built around the sender's convenience, not theirs."
  },
  {
   "heat": 4,
   "take": "Choosing a format no one can skim, so the only option is to stop everything and listen on someone else's schedule, is putting convenience over respect for other people's time."
  }
 ],
 "steelman": "A voice note can carry tone, warmth and nuance that text strips out, and in a quick back-and-forth it's often faster to record than to type.",
 "check_first": [],
 "opener": "Does anyone here actually prefer voice notes, or do we all secretly skim-dread them?"
}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "take": "Small talk is underrated: chatting about the weather is a better opener than any deep question, and we should stop sneering at it.",
 "why": "Easy questions let shy people join in. I have watched a deep-question icebreaker make a whole table go quiet.",
 "where": "work",
 "table": "most",
 "page_facts": "hedges | none\nsweeping_words | none\nnames_people | none\ninsult_words | none\nfamiliar_match | none\nhas_reason | yes\nword_count | 23\npage_guess | unknown - from word lists only, a hint that can be wrong\nverdict_rule | check in order and stop at the first that fits: 1) cheap_heat when insults is true; 2) too_vague when vague is true; 3) lukewarm when familiar is true; 4) otherwise genuinely_spicy"
}

{
 "task": "heat",
 "title": "Medium-Hot Small Talk Sauce",
 "checks": {
  "insults": false,
  "vague": false,
  "familiar": false
 },
 "verdict": "genuinely_spicy",
 "verdict_reason": "It takes a clear stand against the idea that small talk is beneath us, with no insults and nothing vague, so it counts as genuinely spicy.",
 "heat": 4,
 "everyone_says": "The common view says small talk is empty filler and real connection needs deeper, more meaningful questions instead.",
 "stand": [
  {
   "step": "stake",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "States plainly that small talk beats deep questions as an opener, no hedging or label."
  },
  {
   "step": "target",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "Targets the habit of dismissing small talk, not the people who do it."
  },
  {
   "step": "argue",
   "mark": "strong",
   "note": "Backs it with a specific memory of a deep-question icebreaker silencing a table."
  },
  {
   "step": "nod",
   "mark": "missing",
   "note": "Doesn't admit the upside of deep questions; the strongest counterpoint appears elsewhere in this reply."
  },
  {
   "step": "declare",
   "mark": "weak",
   "note": "One sentence, but it stacks three claims together rather than stating one plain declaration."
  }
 ],
 "hotter": [
  {
   "heat": 2,
   "take": "Deep icebreaker questions often backfire, shutting people down instead of opening the conversation up."
  },
  {
   "heat": 3,
   "take": "The push to replace small talk with deep questions is really a way to make easy conversation feel inadequate."
  },
  {
   "heat": 4,
   "take": "Treating small talk as beneath us is a kind of gatekeeping dressed up as depth."
  }
 ],
 "steelman": "Easy chatter can stay comfortably surface forever, while a harder question, even if it occasionally falls flat, is often what finally lets people actually connect.",
 "check_first": [],
 "opener": "Is small talk actually useful, or does it just feel like filler before the real conversation starts?"
}

const K = HeatKit;
const built = K.buildInput({ take: "Leftovers are better than the meal the night before.", why: "The flavours have had a night to settle.", where: "dinner", table: "half" });
built.pre;                                       // { hedges, sweeps, people, insults, familiar, reason, guess, ... } - the free label check
const wire = K.toWire(built.input);              // POST this to /estimate and /run
// then: const reply = K.normalize(K.parseReply(job.output.output));
// K.check(reply, built).notes                   // the page's re-check of the taste test
// K.verdictFor(reply.checks)                    // the verdict rule on the reply's own checks

BASE="https://api.skillsafe.ai/v1/app-api"
TOKEN="paste-your-token-here"   # from https://room-temperature.skillsafe.ai/tokens.html
api() { # api METHOD PATH [JSON-BODY]
  curl -s -X "$1" "$BASE$2" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    ${TOKEN:+-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"} ${3:+--data "$3"}
}

# a guest token (enough for /me and /estimate); a run needs your personal token from /tokens.html
TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST "$BASE/guest" -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"slug":"room-temperature"}' | jq -r '.data.token')

api GET /me | jq '.data | {subject_type, credits}' 

# input.json: the run input object - {"task": "heat", "take": "...", "why": "...", "where": "dinner", "table": "few", "page_facts": "..."} - see the field table
api POST /estimate "$(cat input.json)" | jq '.data | {hold_credits, min_credits, model, model_alias, markup_bps, warnings}' 

KEY="room-temperature:heat:$(shasum -a 256 input.json | cut -c1-16):a1"
JOB=$(curl -s -X POST "$BASE/run" -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
  -H "Idempotency-Key: $KEY" --data @input.json | jq -r '.data.job_id')
while :; do
  J=$(api GET "/jobs/$JOB"); S=$(echo "$J" | jq -r '.data.status')
  case "$S" in succeeded|failed|cancelled) break;; esac; sleep 2
done
echo "$J" | jq -r '.data.output.output' > reply.json   # one JSON object, the reply contract
echo "$J" | jq '.data | {charged_credits, truncated}' 

# Server-Sent Events: tick/delta events while the job runs, then a final event with the job
curl -N -s -X POST "$BASE/run-stream" -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
  -H "Idempotency-Key: room-temperature:heat:$(shasum -a 256 input.json | cut -c1-16):a1" --data @input.json