anchor stringlengths 723 2.15k | positive stringlengths 153 8.2k |
|---|---|
I need to check the fields and data types in the selected CSV file to verify version compatibility. What is the next operation?
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 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... |
With the requirements satisfied, I need to pull the specific permission records from the mixed sources. How do I proceed?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_leng... | 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... |
My goal is to transform the data, but I first need to understand the document's section layout. What should I do next?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent Stat... | 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... |
Given the stale state and partial inventory, I need to find the exact pages for the transformation task. What is the best next move?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "... | 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... |
Given the CSV source is selected and we need field definitions, which read-only operation should run next to inspect the resource without side effects?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discove... | 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... |
Since no evidence has been inspected yet and the assessment is stale, what next action resolves the contradiction in telemetry requirements using structured inspection?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "... | 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)... |
We have one passage of evidence but two unresolved requirements. Should we inspect the candidate result or finalize selection despite the partial context?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "... | Use this candidate when the task requires a candidate result.. Capabilities: inspect evidence. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. Arguments: claim (string optional)... |
How can I verify version compatibility by expanding the surrounding context of the existing snippets, given that the source inventory is still unknown?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "te... | 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... |
With eight steps remaining and schema ambiguity blocking retrieval, what is the highest-priority operation to determine if the evidence from the inspected sources agrees or conflicts regarding the technical instruction?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active... | 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 left two requirements unresolved due to paraphrasing obstacles. What is the best recovery step to update requirement coverage and ensure consistency checks across the complementary code sources are complete?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"act... | 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... |
I have one step left and contradictory evidence regarding event delivery retry behavior. Should I prioritize assessing whether the current information is sufficient or listing additional sources to resolve the dispute before finalizing?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0... | 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... |
What is the precise next action required to finalize the selection for the data transformation task, considering the partial context and near-duplicate retrieval obstacles observed so far?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "... | 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... |
With four unresolved version compatibility requirements and stale assessments, what is the most direct next step to gather information that will help plan the verification of missing version constraints?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", ... | 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... |
I need to resolve contradictions in field definitions but have no steps left and only snippets available. How can I best leverage the unknown inventory to find the full resource details without using obvious search verbs?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_fam... | 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 verify resource lifecycle limits, but the long document makes finding the exact passage difficult. What indirect approach helps me locate the relevant content to confirm these constraints effectively?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": fa... | The operation produces a reliable result for the relevant content under current constraints.. Capabilities: search content, retrieve passages. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. ... |
Combining the need to identify an exact permission token with the constraint of only one step remaining, what is the correct operation to retrieve this identifier from the partial CSV source for access control validation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"acti... | 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 mixed modalities and need for consistency checks, what read-only operation should I perform to filter resources by metadata without altering local state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_f... | 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... |
Having checked the event logs, what remaining step involving structured data inspection is necessary to resolve the identifier variation in retry behavior?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": ... | 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... |
Should I prioritize matching records in the spreadsheet over a general content search to resolve the schema ambiguity for field compatibility?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Sour... | 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 structural landmarks of the PDF to validate data quality constraints when the context appears split across sections?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery"}... | 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 one step left and access control rules pending, should I focus on identifying relevant page ranges or finalize the selection based on current assessments?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_famil... | 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 to join workflow steps, how do I reliably select the correct resource to determine the next automation action?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_... | 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... |
Which resource-oriented operation allows me to look up exact symbols and definitions in the codebase without triggering side effects or writing state?
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 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 next action to inspect the candidate result for the data transformation task, ensuring no side effects occur during this 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 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 a snippet of the technical instruction but need the full surrounding context. What is the next step to retrieve the missing details?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "res... | 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... |
With multiple passages collected, what is the appropriate action to verify if they align or diverge in their instructions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "qu... | 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 we meet all technical goals, what operation should be performed to track requirement coverage and update status?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"available_... | 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... |
Considering the mixed evidence and validation constraints, what is the right move to confirm if the current information set is sufficient?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governan... | 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... |
Since requirements are met and side effects must be avoided, what is the safe final action to lock in the version compatibility result?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result"... | 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 ... |
Having reviewed access rules partially, what is the best next step to gather remaining permission details from the structured source?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Source State: {"available_modaliti... | 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 optional), priority (str... |
Should I inspect the specific record again or list all available resources to verify the absence of a particular access rule?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_ve... | 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 should I verify the field definition in the code to ensure schema compatibility, given the stale assessment?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent S... | 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 only two steps left, which operation should I prioritize to find the exact field identifier needed for schema compatibility?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_leng... | Invoke the candidate to determine an exact name, code, or token from the available resources.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: c... |
My previous attempts were ambiguous; how should I recover by identifying resource metadata filters for data quality validation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerat... | 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... |
I have one step remaining. Which catalog-based operation should I use to inspect the fields and structure of this Excel source?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"availabl... | 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... |
What is the next action to locate matching records that define access rules and permissions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "cont... | 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 ... |
I need to check consistency across sources. What is the direct next step to find sections and structural landmarks?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent ... | 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 locate the relevant page ranges in this PDF to handle failure recovery without using obvious search terms?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agen... | 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 (... |
I aim to complete the data transformation. What indirect goal-oriented step should I take to read the selected resource?
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 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 the workflow task with the need for symbol resolution, what operation should I use to inspect code definitions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_ba... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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: ... |
Given the side-effect constraint of a read-only operation, what is the correct next step to inspect the specific candidate result for event retry behavior without modifying state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step"... | 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... |
I have checked two sources but the context around the quality constraints remains incomplete. What should I do next to retrieve the missing surrounding details from the text?
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 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 prioritize comparing the conflicting field definitions across the CSV sources, or would it be better to first verify the exact schema structure to resolve the ambiguity?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verificat... | 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 that the current evidence sufficiently covers the version compatibility requirements, given that my assessment of requirement progress is currently stale?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "l... | 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 only two steps remaining and the requirement set complete, should I focus on assessing if the available code evidence is sufficient 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}]
... | 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... |
My previous attempt to clarify the event delivery logic was ambiguous. How should I recover by selecting the final result or determining the next concrete action based on the existing evidence?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": ... | 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 ... |
Considering the resource catalog is only partially known, what is the optimal next information-gathering step to handle failure recovery scenarios in the codebase without duplicating effort?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumer... | 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 next action required to list the available resources so I can apply the necessary data transformation with only one step remaining?
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 the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
I need to verify data quality constraints. What is the correct next operation to retrieve the relevant content from the available indexed sources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_disc... | 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... |
Since we have contradictory evidence regarding version compatibility, what step do I take to pinpoint the exact token or code identifier needed for validation?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial... | 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... |
My goal is to ensure consistency across multiple sources. How should I proceed to gather the necessary metadata and filters to align these resources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_... | The operation produces a reliable result for resource metadata and filters under current constraints.. Capabilities: search metadata, filter sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filt... |
We are in the synthesis phase with disputed requirements. Given the need for structural validation, what is the best way to examine fields and types in the structured source?
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 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... |
For telemetry trace verification, I must avoid side effects. What read-only operation allows me to query matching records from the mixed-modality source inventory?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent Sta... | 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... |
I have inspected several passages but lack a full view. What is the next step to identify the section landmarks within the selected PDF source for the workflow?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_n... | 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 want to check field definitions, but that might be premature. Why is locating the specific page ranges in the document the more precise next move for this task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: ... | 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 can I verify if the split context snippets form a consistent whole by examining the full content of the selected local resource?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source State: {"availab... | Invoke the candidate to determine the selected resource from the available resources.. Capabilities: read content, inspect full source. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (in... |
With one step left, which operation should I run to resolve the version compatibility dispute by checking symbols and definitions in the code?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient... | 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 attempts were ambiguous. To recover and clarify the event delivery behavior, should I inspect a specific candidate result or search again?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool... | 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 have snippets but lack context on field compatibility. Should I expand the surrounding evidence or check the resource catalog first?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result":... | 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 determine if the workflow records conflict, given that I have already inspected multiple sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction... | 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, should I update the requirement coverage status now that the data transformation constraints are identified?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_res... | 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... |
Do I have enough information to handle the failure recovery scenario, or do I need to gather more data from the spreadsheet?
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 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... |
To achieve consistency across the database sources, what should be the final action taken to select the correct result?
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 ... | 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... |
Combining the need for data transformation with unknown source inventory, what is the best next step to plan information gathering?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "w... | 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... |
Given that I need to work with code files and must avoid any operations that modify state, what is the safest next step to identify all available resources before proceeding?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "s... | 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) |
Since I have already inspected structured schemas and found contradictory evidence regarding access rules, what should I do next to resolve the remaining permission requirements?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent Stat... | 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 search for the exact event handler token in the textual logs or inspect the SQLite schema to verify retry behavior compatibility?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation"... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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 if the resource metadata filters correctly identify the technical instruction sections within the unknown inventory?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": ... | This operation handles 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 only eight steps left and a disputed requirement about fields, should I prioritize inspecting the Excel schema or listing all sources again?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use"... | 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:... |
My previous attempt to find version compatibility records was ambiguous. How should I recover by searching for matching entries in the CSV file?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "opera... | 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 catalog operation should I use to locate the specific sections containing technical instructions within the mixed document set?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness... | 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 action to retrieve the specific page ranges from the mixed documents that address workflow automation?
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"... | 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... |
Which operation should I perform to examine the full content of the selected resource?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 2}, {"action_family": "tool_use... | 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... |
Given the stale assessment, how do I proceed to verify the symbols and definitions in the source?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "short", "sta... | 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... |
How can I resolve the contradiction between the two observed results to determine the correct event handling behavior?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_reso... | 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... |
With no steps remaining and disputed requirements, which operation fills the gap in missing surrounding context?
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}, {... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on missing surrounding context.. Capabilities: expand context, resolve split context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Si... |
Considering side-effect constraints, which read-only operation checks for agreement or conflict between the inspected sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_ex... | 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... |
Having checked the initial data, what is the next step to update task requirements and coverage for the transformation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}... | 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... |
Should I list available resources again, or is it better to assess if the current information is sufficient for access rules?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibil... | 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... |
How do I verify the selected result against the field definitions to ensure compatibility 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}, {"act... | 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 no steps remaining and stale assessments, what is the highest priority next move to gather information from known CSV sources given near-duplicate obstacles?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "ret... | 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... |
After ambiguous attempts in document analysis with unknown inventory, how do I recover by identifying available resources for the relevant technical instruction?
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 the available resources under current constraints.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
Given complete requirement progress but zero steps left, what catalog-oriented operation retrieves relevant content from PDFs for this technical instruction?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active":... | 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 concise next action to locate an exact name or token across sources for consistency checks, given disputed progress?
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 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 ... |
Directly state the concrete operation needed to retrieve resource metadata and filters for data transformation with one step remaining.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "qu... | Use this candidate when the task requires resource metadata and filters.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), sort (string optional) |
How should I handle fields and types in structured sources for validation, given contradictory evidence and near-duplicate obstacles?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "loo... | 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:... |
Indirectly guide me toward matching records for telemetry traces, given split context and broad query specificity in observability tasks.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"ava... | 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... |
Combine retrieval of structural landmarks with compatibility checks in document analysis, given fresh assessments and identifier-exact matches.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operat... | 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 PDF source constraint and read-only safety requirement, what operation should target the relevant pages or ranges for the next workflow step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "too... | 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... |
After checking the code source, I have one evidence item but two unresolved telemetry requirements. What is the next step to inspect the selected resource further?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase":... | 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 use code structure inspection for symbols and definitions, or content search for general text? Distinguish the precise next move for this technical instruction.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan... | 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 the candidate result against validation constraints when the context is split across multiple passages and requirements are complete?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool... | 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 only one step left and partial requirement progress, prioritize the operation that retrieves missing surrounding context for resource lifecycle details.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "insp... | 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... |
Previous attempts were ambiguous due to version noise. How should I recover by comparing agreement or conflict between results to resolve field definitions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family":... | 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... |
Resource inventory is partial and requirements are disputed. What catalog-oriented operation updates task requirements and coverage to clarify the next lifecycle step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"pha... | 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... |
Next action: assess whether the available CSV-based information is sufficient to resolve the near-duplicate obstacle in this workflow step.
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 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... |
The requirements are met and the evidence is fresh. What operation should I perform to finalize the version compatibility check?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source State: {"available_m... | This operation handles the selected result or next action while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: finalize selection, emit terminal result. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficie... |
Given the partial inventory and previous searches, how do I determine the optimal path to locate the missing workflow component?
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 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 resolve conflicting telemetry traces. What is the first step to identify which data sources contain the relevant definitions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "... | 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) |
The source is CSV-based and I have a specific identifier. How do I retrieve the exact content needed for the next workflow stage?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "wea... | 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... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.