[maxbolgarin]

Summary

The video analysis described the argument but never gave an opinion on the video as a whole. Readers want to know whether the argument holds up and whether the video is worth their time.

• Added a final «Вердикт» / «Verdict» section to presets/{ru,en}/video.md with three parts:
  • Аргументация / Argument: strong, middling or weak, and why.
  • Ценность / Value: what the video gives a viewer, how deep it goes, and whether it lives up to its title.
  • Стоит ли смотреть / Worth watching: yes / optional / no, who it's for, and whether the breakdown is enough on its own.
• The verdict judges the reasoning and the delivery, not whether the model agrees with the conclusion. Fact-checking stays with the factcheck preset.
• The system prompt now says the verdict covers the whole video. When the reduce step merges the per-chunk analyses, it writes one new verdict instead of gluing the chunk verdicts together.
• Removed the "don't judge whether the speaker is right" line from the argument section, because it contradicted the verdict. The "don't fact-check" line stays.
• Bumped prompt_version from v2 to v3 so cached analyses are regenerated.

Related issue

n/a

Test plan

• uv run pytest -q (2661 passed)
• uv run ruff check . (prompt-only change, no Python touched)
• uv run ruff format --check . (prompt-only change, no Python touched)

Checklist

• PR title uses a Conventional Commits prefix
• Updated CLAUDE.md if architecture / invariants changed (not needed)
• Added or updated tests for the change (prompt text only)
• No new network calls inside tests

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01YRMdJxX37V1m1zn1o8Mujx

---

Generated by Claude Code

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.10.0 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀