anchor stringlengths 723 2.15k | positive stringlengths 153 8.2k |
|---|---|
With one step left, which operation is most critical to determine if the field definitions from different sources agree or conflict?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "... | 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... |
The previous attempt missed key resource limits; what should I do now to accurately track requirements and coverage for this lifecycle task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "re... | 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... |
To decide on the next workflow step, which operation helps confirm if the current information inventory is sufficient for proceeding?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery",... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of whether available information is sufficient.. Capabilities: assess evidence, validate sufficiency. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set req... |
Requirements are complete; what is the correct next action to finalize the selected result based on the technical instruction?
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 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... |
I need the best next information-gathering step to resolve a compatibility issue with exact identifiers. Which operation should I use?
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 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... |
For validating quality constraints, how can I get a better picture of the resources at hand without changing anything else?
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", "s... | 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) |
My goal is to clarify resource lifecycle limits; which operation will help me pinpoint the relevant content needed to finish this?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "we... | 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... |
Task: verify field compatibility. State: one step left. Constraint: find an exact token. What operation should happen next?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verif... | 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... |
Given the need to maintain read-only safety while verifying consistency across CSV sources, what operation should I perform next using resource metadata and filters?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partia... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of resource metadata and filters.. Capabilities: search metadata, filter sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional),... |
Since I have already reviewed some partial context but still need to verify field types for consistency, what specific structural inspection should happen next?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contrad... | 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 must choose between inspecting the document structure or retrieving matching records; given the modality constraints, which precise next move avoids a tempting alternative?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long"... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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 require... |
How can I verify the result by examining sections and structural landmarks in the PDF to confirm event delivery behavior before finalizing?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "res... | 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... |
With zero steps remaining and disputed requirements, what is the highest priority action to identify relevant pages for the required data transformation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"ph... | 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 (... |
After an ambiguous attempt left the workflow step unclear, how do I recover by inspecting the selected text resource to determine the next action?
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 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... |
To address telemetry requirements without naming specific tools, what catalog-oriented operation should I use to inspect symbols and definitions in mixed sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"ph... | 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... |
What is the concise next action needed to inspect a candidate result from the code source to verify the required data transformation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readin... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of 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 op... |
I have four contradictory snippets about resource lifecycle limits but lack the surrounding context. What operation should I perform to expand this context?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "pa... | 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... |
Since the access rule data from multiple sources needs reconciliation, what is the appropriate step to evaluate consistency across the findings?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use",... | 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... |
To ensure the recovery procedure meets all criteria, how should I adjust the tracking of necessary elements based on the current findings?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation":... | 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... |
With two conflicting pieces of evidence on access permissions and a stale assessment, what check is needed to confirm if we have enough data?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "r... | 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... |
I have identified the final workflow step from Excel data. Without side effects, what is the correct way to commit this selected result?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": ... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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 ... |
After checking four sources with one full passage found, what is the optimal next move to gather more information for the disputed workflow requirements?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "t... | 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... |
Should I list available resources to resolve version conflicts, or is another approach better for clarifying 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": "contr... | 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 verify that the relevant access control content has been correctly identified from the inspected spreadsheet sources?
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 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... |
With eight steps left and schema ambiguity blocking progress, what operation should I use to find the exact token in this Excel file for failure recovery?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": fa... | The operation produces a reliable result for an exact name, code, or token under current constraints.. Capabilities: exact pattern search, identifier search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side ... |
After an ambiguous attempt with one step remaining, how do I determine resource metadata and filters for access control rules in this PDF?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation":... | 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... |
To resolve schema ambiguity for data transformation, which operation reveals fields and types in the known Excel source?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modal... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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: includ... |
With two steps left and version noise present, what is the next action to enumerate matching records in the SQLite database?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "questio... | 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 ... |
For telemetry trace requirements, what operation identifies sections and structural landmarks in the PDF source?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery"}
Source State: {"ava... | 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... |
In mixed format failure recovery, how can I locate the relevant pages or ranges without using obvious search verbs?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery"}
Source State: {"available_... | Invoke the candidate to determine the relevant pages or ranges from the available resources.. 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... |
For version compatibility with one unresolved requirement, what goal-oriented action retrieves the selected resource content?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
So... | 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... |
Combining event retry tasks, unknown inventory, and acronym obstacles, what operation inspects symbols in the code source?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_mod... | 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... |
Given the read-only constraint and SQLite modality, should I inspect the candidate evidence or list sources to satisfy telemetry trace compatibility?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_su... | 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... |
After checking metadata and finding gaps in context for consistency checks, what is the next step to resolve the remaining dispute without re-searching?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_di... | 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... |
Should I compare the inspected Excel records to detect conflicts, or search for exact patterns? Which action correctly resolves resource lifecycle discrepancies?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_fam... | 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... |
How can I verify if the current evidence sufficiently covers version compatibility requirements before finalizing the selection?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"av... | 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... |
With limited steps remaining and stale assessments, should I prioritize assessing evidence sufficiency or updating requirements to meet telemetry trace needs?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"ph... | 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... |
After ambiguous synthesis of event handling data, what is the correct recovery action to finalize the selected result for retry behavior?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthes... | 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 ... |
Which catalog-based or planning operation best determines the next step for the required data transformation given the partial source inventory?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"a... | 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),... |
What is the concise next action to identify available resources for the data transformation task?
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"... | 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) |
What is the correct next operation to validate the quality of the relevant content from the CSV file given that I need to confirm data consistency?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "o... | 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... |
How can I locate the precise identifier within the database to verify it matches across different sources without altering my current tracking state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "gove... | This operation handles an exact name, code, or token while preserving the current task state.. 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... |
I need to identify the right section in the document to find the technical instruction; what is the best way to filter resources by their metadata to reach that goal?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phas... | 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... |
Given that I have partial snippets and need to understand the structure for event handling, what operation should I perform to inspect the fields and types?
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 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 need to find matching records in the mixed sources for event delivery, but I must ensure no side effects occur; what is the safe next step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operati... | 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... |
Having checked several passages but still lacking full clarity on the transformation steps, how do I determine the structural landmarks in the remaining PDF sections?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {... | 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 ... |
Should I compare the evidence I already have or look up the specific pages again to resolve the contradiction about the identifier's validity?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operat... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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), quer... |
How do I verify if the selected resource contains the correct transformation rule by checking its exact contents against the expected schema?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operati... | 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... |
With one step left, which operation should I run to extract the exact symbols from the code source needed to verify version compatibility?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", ... | 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... |
My previous attempt was ambiguous. What should I do next to reliably inspect the candidate result regarding resource limits before moving on?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_len... | 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... |
I need to find missing context from mixed sources. What operation allows me to expand the current view without naming a specific tool or catalog?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "oper... | 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... |
What is the next step to compare the agreement between the results I have found so far for data quality validation?
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}... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of 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: comparis... |
Directly tell me what operation updates the task requirements and coverage status given the current disputed state and limited steps.
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 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... |
Is the information I have gathered enough to proceed with the technical instruction analysis, or do I need to gather more first?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare... | 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... |
I want to ensure consistency across sources. What final action should I take to lock in the selected result based on the fresh assessment?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Source State:... | The operation produces a reliable result for the selected result or next action under current constraints.. Capabilities: finalize selection, emit terminal result. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh ... |
Combining the need for exact lookup with schema ambiguity, what is the best next information-gathering step for this data quality task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_... | 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 optional),... |
Given the stale assessment and unknown source inventory, what read-only operation should I perform next to identify available text resources for this data quality task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent Stat... | 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 have inspected partial context from four prior searches but face version noise. What read-only step resolves the contradiction in the relevant sqlite content without altering state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "s... | 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... |
Should I inspect the PDF structure or search for an exact token to resolve the consistency check? Distinguish the precise next move from expanding context given zero observed evidence.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_b... | 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... |
How can I verify the resource limits using metadata filters when the assessment is fresh but evidence count is zero? What read-only operation confirms the lifecycle status?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolutio... | 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... |
With eight steps remaining and contradictory evidence on access rules, what priority action inspects the sqlite schema to define field types and permissions?
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 fields, types, and structure under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema, discover fields. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side ... |
My previous semantic search failed due to near-duplicates in excel files. What recovery operation retrieves matching records for event retry behavior using the known schema?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
... | 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... |
Which structural landmarks should I check in the document to resolve the recovery issue?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", ... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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 (... |
What is the next step to verify field definitions across the relevant pages?
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": "synthesis", "qu... | 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... |
I need to verify the quality of the selected PDF resource. What is the correct next operation to inspect its content directly?
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",... | 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... |
We have inspected multiple sources and joined some data. Now we need to understand the symbol definitions in the code to transform it correctly. What should we do?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "g... | 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... |
I am trying to select the latest value from an Excel file but only have partial context. How should I proceed to get the full candidate result?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_... | 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... |
I have snippets from a CSV file but lack the surrounding context needed for telemetry traces. Given the remaining steps, how do I retrieve the missing details?
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 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 need to check if two pieces of evidence about field definitions conflict. This must be done without writing to local state. What is the safe next step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "t... | 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... |
I have checked eight records but still have two unresolved requirements regarding quality. What should I update to reflect this coverage status?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use",... | 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... |
I could search for more exact patterns, but since my assessment is fresh, should I instead verify if the current evidence is sufficient?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery"... | This operation handles whether available information is sufficient while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: assess evidence, validate sufficiency. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical ev... |
I have partial context from a PDF and need to confirm consistency. How do I verify the final result or determine the next action based on available evidence?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family"... | 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... |
With only one step left and two unresolved requirements, what is the highest-priority next action to gather information given the schema ambiguity in the Excel source?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"acti... | 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... |
Since the previous attempt was ambiguous due to an acronym, how can I reliably determine what resources are actually available to proceed with the absence verification task?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "l... | 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) |
With no steps remaining and all requirements met, what is the appropriate final operation to resolve the contradiction in the versioning data without further inspection?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", ... | 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... |
What is the immediate next step to locate the exact token needed for failure recovery, considering the identifier variation issue in the CSV data?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use... | 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 ... |
How should I filter the resource metadata to ensure consistency across sources, given that the inventory is known but the identifiers vary?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation... | This operation handles resource metadata and filters while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search metadata, filter sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (obj... |
What needs to be understood about the fields and types in the CSV file to handle the schema ambiguity during the final compatibility check?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "res... | 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:... |
How can I identify records in the SQLite database that match the field definitions, given that the requirement progress is disputed and no steps remain?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "to... | 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... |
Considering the mixed source modality and access control rules, how should I examine the document structure to verify the absence of certain permissions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phas... | 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... |
Given the stale assessment and mixed modality, what read-only operation should target relevant page ranges to resolve version compatibility without altering local state?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insuf... | 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... |
Having checked metadata filters and enumerated records, what final inspection of the selected resource is needed to confirm access rules before terminating?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insuf... | 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... |
Should I plan a new retrieval step or directly inspect code symbols and definitions to clarify the data transformation logic, given the contradictory evidence?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_famil... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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), resou... |
How can I verify if the candidate result for the next workflow step is accurate, considering the snippets are incomplete and evidence was absent after exhaustion?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_fa... | This operation handles a candidate result while preserving the current task state.. 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... |
With four steps remaining and a stale assessment, should I prioritize expanding the missing surrounding context or finalizing the selection for the data transformation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent Sta... | 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 with complementary sources, how should I compare the results to determine if event delivery behavior is consistent or conflicting?
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 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... |
With zero steps remaining and disputed requirements, which catalog-based operation updates coverage tracking to reflect the resolved contradiction in workflow steps?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "stat... | 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... |
What is the single next action to assess whether the available PDF evidence is sufficient for version compatibility, given the acronym obstacle?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery... | 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... |
Now that the workflow requirements are fully met, what is the specific operation needed to finalize the selected result or determine the next action?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, ... | 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 the disputed status of resource limits and lifecycle details, what is the most effective way to gather the missing information to resolve the current state?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name":... | 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... |
I need to understand the field definitions and compatibility across my available resources; what is the best first step to achieve this understanding?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"pha... | 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) |
For our observability task with strict telemetry trace requirements, how should we retrieve the exact relevant content given the near-duplicate noise?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "plannin... | 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... |
What read-only operation should I use to find the exact version token in the PDF without altering any existing state or files?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source State: {"a... | 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... |
Having checked the initial recovery steps but leaving four requirements unresolved, what metadata filters should I apply to find the remaining resources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fr... | 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... |
Should I inspect the CSV schema to verify field types before updating the telemetry requirements, or is there a more direct path to resolving the dispute?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": fa... | 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 records in the SQLite database match the required transformation criteria for this data processing task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "q... | 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 only eight steps left and a stale assessment, what should I do first to locate structural landmarks in the document for quality validation?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source State: {... | 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... |
Since my previous attempt was ambiguous, how should I proceed to find specific page ranges that clarify event retry behavior with two steps remaining?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false,... | 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 resource-oriented action should I take now to check consistency across sources without naming a specific tool, given my current catalog access?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_... | 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... |
What is the immediate next action needed to inspect symbols and definitions within the code to understand event handling mechanisms?
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 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)... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.