anchor stringlengths 723 2.15k | positive stringlengths 153 8.2k |
|---|---|
With only two steps remaining and source inventory unknown, what is the priority action to determine missing surrounding context for compatibility checks?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fre... | Invoke the candidate to determine missing surrounding context from the available resources.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read... |
After an ambiguous attempt left contradictions unresolved, how do I recover by comparing evidence to settle agreement on the required data transformation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": tr... | The operation produces a reliable result for agreement or conflict between results under current constraints.. Capabilities: compare evidence. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Side effects: non... |
For failure recovery tasks with partial source knowledge, which catalog-oriented step best updates requirement coverage without introducing local state writes?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name":... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of task requirements and coverage.. Capabilities: update requirements, track coverage. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effects: l... |
Assess whether available information is sufficient for the technical instruction, considering multi-source inspection has occurred but no formal evaluation exists.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of whether available information is sufficient.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. Side effects: l... |
Requirements are complete and the assessment is fresh. What specific terminal operation should be executed to lock in the selected result or define the immediate next action?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1},... | Use this candidate when the task requires the selected result or next action.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment required. Side effects: local... |
Given that the source inventory is unknown and the current plan is stale, how should the agent structure its approach to gather the necessary information regarding access rules?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_select... | This operation handles the best next information-gathering step while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (string req... |
To verify the absence of specific telemetry traces, we need to know exactly which resources are accessible. What is the correct step to reveal the full inventory of available sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "s... | Invoke the candidate to determine the available resources from the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
We have only seen snippets so far and need the full technical instructions from mixed-modality sources. Given this constraint, what is the appropriate operation to retrieve the relevant content?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_leng... | The operation produces a reliable result for the relevant content under current constraints.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (i... |
Safety constraints require read-only operations to avoid side effects. To find an exact permission token in textual sources without altering state, which specific retrieval capability should be used?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "res... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on an exact name, code, or token.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: case sen... |
We have already checked code symbols but still lack clarity on field compatibility. Since the source inventory is unknown, what is the next step to inspect resource metadata and filters?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak",... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of resource metadata and filters.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), sort (string op... |
You might be tempted to compare evidence again, but the requirement is disputed. To resolve this, we must inspect the structured schema. Why is checking fields and types the precise next move?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "... | Use this candidate when the task requires fields, types, and structure.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: include types (boole... |
How can I verify that the failure recovery records match the expected entity identifiers? What is the best way to ensure the retrieved records align with the known Excel data?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent Stat... | This operation handles matching records while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search structured records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: l... |
With one step left, what is the priority operation to map sections and landmarks in the PDF for event retry details?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 2... | Invoke the candidate to determine sections and structural landmarks from the available resources.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: lan... |
The prior attempt was ambiguous; how do I recover by finding the correct pages on resource limits in the PDF?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "s... | The operation produces a reliable result for the relevant pages or ranges under current constraints.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page... |
Which catalog-oriented action reads the selected resource to clarify the technical instruction for document analysis?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": ... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the selected resource.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optional), resource (s... |
Next, inspect code symbols to define access rules and permissions within the current governance state.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 2}, {"action_fa... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of symbols and definitions.. Capabilities: inspect code structure. Accepts: code. Returns: content, code structure. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: code source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: depth (integer required)... |
Directly verify the candidate result regarding resource limits and lifecycle management from the inspected evidence.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "st... | Use this candidate when the task requires a candidate result.. Capabilities: inspect evidence. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. Arguments: claim (string optional)... |
How can I capture the missing surrounding context for telemetry traces without using an obvious retrieval verb?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length... | Invoke the candidate to determine missing surrounding context from the available resources.. Capabilities: expand context, resolve split context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context requi... |
Indirectly, what goal-oriented step determines if the event delivery results conflict or agree across sources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modalities":... | Invoke the candidate to determine agreement or conflict between results from the available resources.. Capabilities: compare evidence. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Side effects: none. Argum... |
Combining version compatibility needs with partial progress, update task requirements to reflect coverage gaps.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["sqlite"... | The operation produces a reliable result for task requirements and coverage under current constraints.. Capabilities: update requirements. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effe... |
Given the stale assessment and single PDF passage, should we assess evidence sufficiency using a local state write operation to verify resource limits?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "gover... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on whether available information is sufficient.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. Side eff... |
With full context inspected and requirements complete, which final action should finalize the selected result for schema compatibility checks?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operat... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the selected result or next action.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment required. Side effects... |
Should we plan the retrieval strategy or search structured records directly to handle the long document needle issue with one remaining step?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source ... | Use this candidate when the task requires the best next information-gathering step.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (string required), priority (str... |
How do we verify available resources for the data transformation task by inspecting evidence candidates from the partial inventory?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "qu... | This operation handles the available resources while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
With four steps left and stale assessments, prioritize searching relevant content over updating requirements to find the latest resource values.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "oper... | Invoke the candidate to determine the relevant content from the available resources.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer o... |
After an ambiguous attempt, how do we recover by performing an exact pattern search to locate the missing technical instruction token?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "ab... | The operation produces a reliable result for an exact name, code, or token under current constraints.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Argu... |
Which catalog-oriented operation should retrieve resource metadata and filters to support the required data transformation in this planning phase?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on resource metadata and filters.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), sort (st... |
What is the next action to inspect fields and structure for the data transformation given the disputed requirement progress?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_valu... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of fields, types, and structure.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: include types... |
I need to verify consistency across sources. Given the known schema, what is the correct next step to find matching records?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "... | This operation handles matching records while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search structured records, filter records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: re... |
I have selected a document resource but need to understand its internal layout. What is the appropriate action to map out its sections and landmarks?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, ... | This operation handles sections and structural landmarks while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: lan... |
My goal is to locate specific technical instructions buried in a long document. What is the best way to identify the relevant page ranges?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "q... | Invoke the candidate to determine the relevant pages or ranges from the available resources.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page range (... |
With requirements complete and evidence fully inspected, what is the final step to read the selected resource and conclude the task?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient... | The operation produces a reliable result for the selected resource under current constraints.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optiona... |
I must examine code symbols without altering state. Which read-only operation safely inspects definitions while respecting modality constraints?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Source State... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on symbols and definitions.. Capabilities: inspect code structure. Accepts: code. Returns: content, code structure. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: code source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: depth (integer re... |
I have checked multiple sources for telemetry data. What remains to be done to verify the provenance of the current candidate result?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source State: ... | Use this candidate when the task requires a candidate result.. Capabilities: inspect evidence, verify provenance. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. Arguments: clai... |
I have snippets but lack full context for failure recovery. Should I compare existing results or expand the surrounding information first?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation"... | Use this candidate when the task requires missing surrounding context.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read. Arguments: result i... |
I have multiple passages from observability logs. How can I verify if these results agree or conflict to finalize my assessment?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source Sta... | This operation handles agreement or conflict between results while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: compare evidence. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Side effects: none. Argum... |
Given four steps left and partial requirement coverage, which operation should I prioritize to validate the transformation requirements against current evidence?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retriev... | Invoke the candidate to determine task requirements and coverage from the available resources.. Capabilities: update requirements. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effects: loc... |
After inconsistent code scans and version noise, how should I proceed to reliably determine if the technical instruction details are sufficient for the dispute?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_fami... | The operation produces a reliable result for whether available information is sufficient under current constraints.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set req... |
With contradictory CSV evidence and complete requirement status, which catalog-level action best determines the final decision on event retry behavior?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "r... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the selected result or next action.. Capabilities: finalize selection, emit terminal result. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment ... |
What is the single best next step to gather telemetry trace data from the CSV source given the stale assessment and paraphrased obstacles?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the best next information-gathering step.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (string required), priori... |
List the available resources needed to verify access control rules, as the source inventory is only partially known and no steps remain.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "... | Use this candidate when the task requires the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
How can I uncover the missing technical instructions from the Excel file when previous lookups failed due to paraphrasing and schema differences?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "ques... | This operation handles the relevant content while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer o... |
To resolve the acronym ambiguity in the PDF traces, which precise token or name lookup should I perform to satisfy the remaining observability requirement?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": f... | Invoke the candidate to determine an exact name, code, or token from the available resources.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: c... |
Combine the need to verify absence of specific access rules with the known Excel schema to identify which metadata filters should be applied next.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use... | The operation produces a reliable result for resource metadata and filters under current constraints.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object requ... |
Given the need to verify telemetry field structures in a CSV without altering state, what read-only operation is required next?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of fields, types, and structure.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema, discover fields. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Argumen... |
After checking all available evidence and finding no unresolved requirements, what terminal action should finalize the current selection?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_re... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of matching records.. Capabilities: search structured records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer ... |
Should I expand the surrounding context of the found passage or inspect the document's structural sections to resolve event retry logic?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result... | Use this candidate when the task requires sections and structural landmarks.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: landmark (string optiona... |
How can I verify if the correct workflow step is documented by searching specific page ranges within the mixed-format source?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_lengt... | This operation handles the relevant pages or ranges while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page range (... |
With limited steps remaining and conflicting evidence on event retries, which single read operation best resolves the ambiguity about the selected resource?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name":... | Invoke the candidate to determine the selected resource from the available resources.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optional), reso... |
My previous lookup was ambiguous due to near-duplicate code; how do I now reliably identify the exact symbols defining the retry logic?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source S... | The operation produces a reliable result for symbols and definitions under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect code structure. Accepts: code. Returns: content, code structure. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: code source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: de... |
Having inspected multiple sources but lacking a clear candidate result, how do I assess whether the current evidence set meets quality constraints?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_us... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on a candidate result.. Capabilities: inspect evidence. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. Arguments: claim (st... |
What is the immediate next step to retrieve the missing surrounding context needed to verify consistency across the textual sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of missing surrounding context.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read. Arguments: r... |
I have collected four pieces of evidence regarding event delivery and retry behavior from a CSV source. The current requirement status is disputed, so I need to determine if these results agree or conflict with one another.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_f... | Use this candidate when the task requires agreement or conflict between results.. Capabilities: compare evidence. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Side effects: none. Arguments: comparison (str... |
My previous checks on the code-based data transformation task yielded contradictory evidence. Since my coverage assessment is incomplete, how can I update the tracked requirements to reflect the current gaps in the available resources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}... | This operation handles task requirements and coverage while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: update requirements. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effects: loc... |
I am looking for a specific identifier in the codebase related to data processing, but the search results were paraphrased. With only one step remaining, how do I confirm if the information I have is sufficient to finalize the selection?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": ... | Invoke the candidate to determine whether available information is sufficient from the available resources.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. S... |
I need to resolve a contradiction in failure recovery logic using mixed-source evidence. My assessment is fresh, but I still have two unresolved requirements. What is the correct next action to select the final result given the constraint that I must not alter local state prematurely?
Decision: route
History: [{"action... | The operation produces a reliable result for the selected result or next action under current constraints.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment ... |
I am investigating access rules in code but have not yet identified the relevant sources. To ensure safety and avoid modifying any state, what is the best read-only operation to plan the next step for gathering information on permissions?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Age... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the best next information-gathering step.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (string required),... |
I have fully inspected the context for this workflow automation task and completed all requirements. However, I still don't know which other resources are available. What should I do next to list the available resources before moving to the final workflow step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "r... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
I have searched twice for content about the next workflow step and found only snippets, leading to a disputed requirement. Should I retrieve the full relevant content again, or is it better to inspect the existing candidate evidence to verify its absence?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result"... | Use this candidate when the task requires the relevant content.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer optional), query (stri... |
I am managing resource limits in a long PDF document but haven't found the specific lifecycle code yet. How can I verify if a particular exact token exists in the source to confirm whether the resource limit is defined or missing?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Pla... | Invoke the candidate to determine an exact name, code, or token from the available resources.. Capabilities: exact pattern search, identifier search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects:... |
With eight steps remaining and a stale assessment, prioritize inspecting resource metadata to resolve data quality disputes. What is the optimal next operation?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name"... | Invoke the candidate to determine resource metadata and filters from the available resources.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), s... |
After an ambiguous attempt, I need to clarify CSV fields for event retries. What specific inspection step should I take now to recover progress?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "oper... | The operation produces a reliable result for fields, types, and structure under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Ar... |
I require exact telemetry records from structured sources but face identifier variations. What catalog-oriented operation best supports this lookup?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "o... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on matching records.. Capabilities: search structured records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (i... |
Next action: identify document sections defining field compatibility for schema management. Keep it concise.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long"... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of sections and structural landmarks.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: landmark (string ... |
Locate the relevant pages in the PDF covering access control rules. Which operation retrieves these specific ranges?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Source State: {"available_modalities":... | This operation handles the relevant pages or ranges while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search document pages, retrieve passages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Argu... |
One step left. I need to confirm resource lifecycle limits from the selected Excel file. What is the appropriate way to access this content?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source Sta... | This operation handles the selected resource while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optional), reso... |
Goal: ensure version compatibility by understanding code symbols. Since inventory is unknown, what indirect approach helps me map these definitions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_u... | Invoke the candidate to determine symbols and definitions from the available resources.. Capabilities: inspect code structure. Accepts: code. Returns: content, code structure. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: code source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: depth (int... |
Task: consistency check across SQLite sources. State: multi-source inspected. Constraint: near-duplicates exist. What candidate result should I verify next?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": ... | The operation produces a reliable result for a candidate result under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect evidence. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. Argum... |
Given the code source and the need to resolve split context for access rules, what read-only operation should expand the surrounding information without altering state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan:... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on missing surrounding context.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read. Argum... |
I have inspected the single access rule passage. With two steps left, should I compare this evidence against other sources to check for conflicts in permission logic?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_n... | Use this candidate when the task requires agreement or conflict between results.. Capabilities: compare evidence, detect contradictions. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Side effects: none. Arg... |
I need to verify if the four unresolved requirements are covered by the inspected evidence. Should I update the governance state rather than scanning the PDF structure again?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long",... | Use this candidate when the task requires task requirements and coverage.. Capabilities: update requirements. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effects: local state write. Argum... |
I have two code passages but no fresh assessment. How can I verify if this information is sufficient to resolve the remaining four requirements for the technical instruction?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state... | This operation handles whether available information is sufficient while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. S... |
With eight pieces of text evidence and a fresh assessment, I have only one unresolved item. Should I finalize the selection or continue inspecting the workflow steps?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent Sta... | Invoke the candidate to determine the selected result or next action from the available resources.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment required... |
My previous searches failed due to acronym ambiguity in access control docs. With two steps left, what is the best way to gather the missing semantic information?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"act... | The operation produces a reliable result for the best next information-gathering step under current constraints.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (st... |
I have fully inspected the CSV schema fields. With two steps remaining, should I list the available resources to check for compatibility issues in field definitions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
I need to find the exact telemetry token in the codebase. With one step left, should I perform an exact pattern search to retrieve the relevant content?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retri... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the relevant content.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer optional), quer... |
Which operation should be used to find the exact permission token in the access control database?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "source_discovery"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["s... | Use this candidate when the task requires an exact name, code, or token.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: case sensitive (boolea... |
What is the next step to identify which spreadsheet contains the technical instructions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 2}, {"action_family": "tool_u... | This operation handles resource metadata and filters while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), s... |
How should I proceed to understand the column definitions in the permissions table?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "sou... | Invoke the candidate to determine fields, types, and structure from the available resources.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments:... |
Given the mixed sources, how do I retrieve the records for the next workflow step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspectio... | The operation produces a reliable result for matching records under current constraints.. Capabilities: search structured records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Argu... |
Without altering state, how do I inspect the section headers in the recovery document?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["text", "pdf", "c... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of sections and structural landmarks.. Capabilities: inspect document structure, discover sections. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments... |
After checking the snippet, how do I find the remaining pages for quality validation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "initial"}
Source Stat... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the relevant pages or ranges.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page range (array required... |
Should I read the selected resource directly or search for related content first?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 2}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "r... | Use this candidate when the task requires the selected resource.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optional), resource (string required... |
How can I verify that the symbol definitions match across the different source formats?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["text", "pdf", "... | This operation handles symbols and definitions while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: inspect code structure. Accepts: code. Returns: content, code structure. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: code source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: depth (int... |
With zero steps left, which operation should I use to inspect the single candidate result for telemetry requirements?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": ... | Invoke the candidate to determine a candidate result from the available resources.. Capabilities: inspect evidence. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. Arguments: cl... |
My previous attempt only gave me snippets. How do I recover the missing surrounding context for these field definitions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_b... | The operation produces a reliable result for missing surrounding context under current constraints.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effec... |
I have data from multiple sources. Which operation lets me check if these access rules agree or conflict with each other?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"available... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on agreement or conflict between results.. Capabilities: compare evidence. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Side effects: none. Arguments: c... |
What is the next best action to update my understanding of the remaining telemetry requirement coverage?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"p... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of task requirements and coverage.. Capabilities: update requirements. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effects: local state write... |
Do I have enough information now to determine the latest trace values, or do I need more data?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "short", "state_n... | Use this candidate when the task requires whether available information is sufficient.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. Side effects: local st... |
Now that the checks are done, how do I formally close out this resource lifecycle task and lock in the outcome?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band":... | This operation handles the selected result or next action while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment required... |
I need to resolve version conflicts but am stuck on an acronym. What strategy would help me find the right code references next?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
A... | Invoke the candidate to determine the best next information-gathering step from the available resources.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (string req... |
I need to join data across sources for consistency checks. Since I don't know all available files, what should I do first?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent ... | The operation produces a reliable result for the available resources under current constraints.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
Given the structured source and the need to verify absence, what is the safest next read-only operation that respects modality constraints?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning",... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the relevant content.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer optional... |
I have checked the partial context but need an exact token. What specific technical instruction should I follow to locate it now?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source State: {... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of an exact name, code, or token.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: case sensitive ... |
Should I inspect code structure or use metadata filters to determine version compatibility? Distinguish the precise next move from the tempting alternative.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": ... | Use this candidate when the task requires resource metadata and filters.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), sort (string optional) |
How should I verify the result by checking fields and types in the selected resource to ensure the technical instruction is accurate?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": ... | This operation handles fields, types, and structure while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments:... |
With limited steps remaining, what is the highest priority action to retrieve matching records for consistency checks across sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "quest... | Invoke the candidate to determine matching records from the available resources.. Capabilities: search structured records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: l... |
My previous attempt was ambiguous. How do I recover by identifying the correct sections and structural landmarks for access rules?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"avai... | The operation produces a reliable result for sections and structural landmarks under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Argume... |
Which catalog-based operation should I use to find the relevant pages or ranges needed for the technical instruction?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the relevant pages or ranges.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page range (array r... |
What is the concise next action to inspect the selected resource for version compatibility issues?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent Stat... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the selected resource.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optional), resource (string r... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.