anchor stringlengths 723 2.15k | positive stringlengths 153 8.2k |
|---|---|
With only two steps left, prioritize inspecting the PDF's structural landmarks to validate quality constraints before finalizing.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_... | 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... |
My previous search failed. How do I recover by finding the specific pages or ranges needed to manage resource limits?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
... | 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... |
I need to access the selected resource from my catalog to resolve contradictions in the CSV data without exceeding limits.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Source State: {"available... | 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 next action to inspect symbols and definitions in the code to determine the latest value for the workflow step?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"availab... | 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)... |
Given the selected candidate snippet from the PDF, what read-only operation should I perform next to verify its provenance for the data transformation task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": ... | This operation handles a candidate result while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: inspect evidence, verify provenance. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: ... |
Since the initial snippets did not cover the full scope of resource limits, how can I retrieve the missing surrounding context to confirm the lifecycle details?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_fami... | This operation handles missing surrounding context while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read... |
I need to determine if the two inspected code passages agree on the access permissions; what non-modifying operation should I use to check for conflicts?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": tru... | 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... |
With all requirements technically met but four unresolved flags remaining, what local-state update should I trigger 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_u... | 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... |
Considering the side-effect constraints and partial CSV context, what safety-compliant step must I take to judge if the telemetry data is sufficient?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "... | 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... |
Having verified consistency across the SQLite sources and confirmed all checks, what final step should I execute to output the definitive result?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "oper... | 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 I outline the optimal next information-gathering step to resolve schema ambiguity, or should I directly scan text files for an exact identifier?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true,... | 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 can I verify consistency across mixed-format resources by confirming which available sources were actually inspected before resolving contradictions?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "co... | 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 zero steps remaining and disputed field definitions, should I prioritize comparing existing evidence to find compatibility or search for new content?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": fa... | 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 four failed broad searches for field definitions, how do I recover by locating an exact token in code sources instead of listing all available resources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_famil... | 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... |
To handle resource lifecycle limits with version noise, should I filter the known catalog using metadata or inspect the structure of a selected document?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": tru... | 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 concise next action to finalize event delivery behavior by inspecting the structured schema fields and types?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source State: {"av... | 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 match records in the Excel source for data transformation. Which operation handles structured retrieval without side effects?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source State: {"... | 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... |
With mixed sources and stale assessments, what is the correct step to identify structural landmarks for access rules?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source State: {"available_moda... | 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... |
Goal is resolving contradictions in data transformation. What should I do next to find relevant page ranges in the PDF?
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 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 (... |
For failure recovery with contradictory Excel evidence, which read-only operation inspects the selected resource safely?
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... | 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... |
Safety first: inspect code symbols for resource limits. Which read-only operation handles this with no side effects?
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 Sta... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of symbols and definitions.. Capabilities: inspect code structure, resolve symbols. Accepts: code. Returns: content, code structure. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: code source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: depth (... |
After checking snippets, what remains? How do I inspect a candidate result to determine 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_sources"}
Agen... | 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... |
Should I expand the surrounding context of the current snippets to resolve the failure recovery gap, rather than immediately updating the tracked requirement status?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_n... | 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... |
How should I verify if the multiple passages from different sources agree or conflict regarding the next workflow step, given that the assessment is fresh?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source... | 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... |
With only one step remaining and stale assessment data, should I prioritize updating requirements coverage or finalize the selection for the consistency check?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"p... | 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 an ambiguous search attempt in a long document, how can I assess whether the available evidence is sufficient to proceed with the technical instruction analysis?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"acti... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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 ... |
Which operation should be performed next to select the final result for version compatibility, considering the full context is available and requirements are complete?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "... | 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 ... |
What is the most effective next step to gather information about validation constraints, given the schema ambiguity and need to verify absence of specific identifiers?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"acti... | 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... |
Given the partial source inventory and identifier variation, what operation should I use to identify available resources for resource limits?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operatio... | 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) |
Since prior searches failed due to version noise, how can I locate the specific content regarding event delivery without using a direct search term?
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 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 ensure consistency across sources, I need to find an exact token. What is the most reliable way to retrieve this specific identifier from the available data?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"activ... | 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 ... |
With one step remaining and requirements complete, how do I finalize the selection while respecting the constraint that no further state changes are allowed?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name... | 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 safely, what operation should I perform to inspect the fields and types of the structured source without modifying any data?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"p... | 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... |
Having checked two passages already, how do I proceed to join the matching records to verify consistency, given that the acronym remains unresolved?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "qu... | 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 examine the document's structural landmarks to find access rules, or should I perform an exact text search for specific permission tokens?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_us... | 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 which pages contain the relevant workflow steps given that current snippets are contradictory and only partial?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerat... | 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, should I prioritize reading the selected resource directly or planning further retrieval to resolve schema ambiguity?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}... | 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... |
After an ambiguous attempt at locating telemetry definitions, how do I recover by inspecting code structure to clarify symbols and trace requirements?
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 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... |
Which operation should I apply to inspect a candidate result from the Excel catalog to support failure recovery analysis without naming specific tools?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Sourc... | 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 next action needed to expand the missing context around the current snippets for accurate failure handling recovery?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "quest... | 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 inspected multiple sources. What is the correct next step to determine if the results agree or conflict?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source State: {"availab... | 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... |
With contradictory snippets and no clear coverage status, how do I properly account for task requirements?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source State: {"available_mod... | 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 need to know if the current code findings are enough to resolve the disputed field definitions.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["code"... | 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... |
Requirements are complete but evidence is contradictory; what is the final action to select the right result?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long... | 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 ... |
Given the stale assessment and known sqlite source, what read-only operation should I take next to handle identifier variation in failure recovery without altering local state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1... | 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),... |
Having checked two sources but with unknown inventory and disputed requirements for event retries, what is the correct next move to identify available resources safely?
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 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) |
Should I finalize the selection now or perform a content search first, considering the code modality constraint and the need to verify access rules despite stale assessments?
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 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... |
With eight evidence items observed and schema ambiguity present, how can I verify an exact version compatibility token using a read-only inspection step that respects mixed modalities?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "... | 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... |
With zero steps remaining and disputed field definitions, what priority action involving resource metadata should I take to resolve the schema management issue before finalizing?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step":... | 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 left two unresolved requirements, what recovery step should I take to inspect the csv structure and confirm event retry behavior with a fresh assessment?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step... | 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... |
With complete requirement progress but one unresolved data transformation item, what catalog-oriented operation should I use next to find matching records without side effects?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", ... | 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... |
What is the immediate next action to locate specific sections and structural landmarks within the pdf to validate data quality constraints given the long document needle obstacle?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "s... | 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 ... |
I need the specific pages from the selected PDF that detail the access rules. Which operation should I run next?
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}, {... | 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... |
The recovery logs are in Excel but my previous checks were incomplete. How should I proceed to examine the chosen file?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modali... | 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... |
To clarify the technical instruction for field compatibility, which action best reveals the code symbols and definitions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "quest... | 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... |
With broad queries and complementary sources, how do I verify a specific candidate result for the latest value selection?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "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 only have snippets so far. What safe, read-only operation can retrieve the missing surrounding context for these CSV fields?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "... | 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 multiple sources with contradictory results. What should I do next to determine if they agree on field definitions?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Sourc... | 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... |
Should I compare the sources again or update the requirement tracking state? Which is the precise next move for coverage?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_... | 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... |
How can I verify that the information gathered is sufficient to define the next workflow step 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", "result": "weak", "step": 2}, {... | 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... |
Given the limited steps left and complete requirements, which operation should be prioritized to finalize the version compatibility 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:... | 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... |
Since my last attempt at finding event retry details was ambiguous, what is the most effective way to gather the necessary information now that I have few steps left?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "... | 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... |
What kind of operation would let me see exactly which resources are available in the catalog to resolve this technical instruction ambiguity?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "r... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources, discover sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), scope (string optional) |
What is the single best next step to locate the specific content needed for version compatibility given zero remaining steps?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exac... | 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... |
I need to find the exact token from the CSV data. What operation should I use to pinpoint this specific identifier among the contradictory sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase":... | 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... |
To understand the resource limits better, what process should I run to filter the metadata associated with these lifecycle definitions?
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. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), s... |
My goal is to verify the schema fields. What type of operation should I trigger to examine the structure of the mixed-format sources available?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operat... | 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:... |
Considering the disputed requirement status and one step remaining, which operation is most suitable for enumerating the matching records from the mixed sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"acti... | 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... |
I have a PDF source selected and need to understand its sections for failure recovery. Given that this is a read-only inspection of structural landmarks, what operation should I perform next?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "w... | 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 (... |
I've checked two prior searches but found no evidence yet. The source is a PDF and I need specific page ranges for data quality validation. What is the correct next retrieval step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step... | 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 have multiple passages from code sources but one requirement remains disputed. Should I read the full content of the selected resource or compare the existing evidence snippets first?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Age... | 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... |
I have full context from four observed items in mixed sources. How can I verify the symbols and definitions related to resource limits before moving to the next lifecycle stage?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": ... | 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 only one candidate result and a limited step budget, I need to check version compatibility. Which operation best verifies if this specific candidate meets the requirements without wasting steps?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "res... | The operation produces a reliable result for a candidate result under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect evidence, verify provenance. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side e... |
My previous attempt was ambiguous because I only had snippets. To ensure consistency across these mixed-format sources, how do I retrieve the missing surrounding context for the selected evidence?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result... | 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 inspected multiple text sources and now need to check for agreement or conflict between them. With no steps remaining, what final governance operation validates the quality constraints?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_len... | 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 need to update my understanding of task coverage for the next workflow step based on the PDF I am analyzing. What operation should I execute to track requirement progress?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, ... | 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... |
Given the code source and current evidence, is the available information sufficient to validate the data quality constraints?
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 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 all requirements are met and the assessment is fresh, how should we proceed to lock in the final decision regarding version compatibility?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "op... | 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... |
To resolve the contradiction in the technical instructions, what is the most effective next step for gathering missing information from the text sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": tru... | 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 identify the exact resource for the next workflow step. Given that the inventory is partial and I only have one step left, which operation retrieves the available resources without altering state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "op... | 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) |
We must verify the absence of specific telemetry data in the SQLite source. To ensure no side effects on the database, which read-only operation is appropriate for finding this relevant content?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result":... | 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 already inspected multiple sources but haven't found the specific access rule token yet. With no steps remaining, what operation lets me locate this exact identifier in the CSV file?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "wea... | 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 ... |
It is tempting to search the content again, but since the sources are mixed and contradictory, why is filtering by resource metadata the better choice for handling failure recovery scenarios?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "w... | 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... |
To verify consistency across the CSV sources, how should I examine the field definitions and types to ensure the schema matches my expectations?
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 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 zero steps left, which operation should I prioritize to verify the absence of telemetry records using the known metadata filters?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Source State: {"a... | 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 search for version compatibility details failed due to identifier variations. How can I recover by identifying structural landmarks in the selected PDF source?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Pl... | 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... |
I need to validate quality constraints on mixed sources. Which catalog-oriented operation should I run next to locate the relevant page ranges for latest values?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_nam... | 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 next action I should take to inspect the selected resource regarding event delivery retry behavior?
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 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... |
Directly state which operation is needed to inspect symbols and definitions in the code source for failure recovery 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": "weak", "st... | 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 do I proceed to look into a candidate result from the evidence set without explicitly stating that I am inspecting it?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band... | 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... |
I aim to resolve version compatibility issues but lack full context. What goal-oriented step should I take to retrieve the missing surrounding information?
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 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... |
Combining my need to enumerate observability records with a constraint on stale assessments, how do I determine agreement between complementary sources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
So... | 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... |
Given the stale assessment and disputed requirement coverage, which read-only operation is safest for verifying task requirements without modifying local state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "term... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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 stat... |
Having checked full context from one passage but lacking a fresh assessment, what is the next step to determine if available information is sufficient?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"pha... | 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... |
Distinguishing between planning further retrieval and finalizing the selection, which move is precise now that requirements are complete and context is contradictory?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phas... | 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... |
How can I verify the result of my multi-source inspection to determine the best next information-gathering step for resource lifecycle management?
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 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... |
With a limited step budget and complete requirement progress, what priority order should I follow to identify available resources for lookup?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "r... | 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) |
After an ambiguous attempt left context split, how do I recover by retrieving the relevant content needed to resolve the contradictory evidence?
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 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... |
Which catalog-oriented operation should I use to locate an exact token or code required for resolving near-duplicate failures in the current state?
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 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... |
What is the next action to inspect resource metadata and filters for the relevant technical instruction in this long document?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradic... | 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... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.