anchor stringlengths 723 2.15k | positive stringlengths 153 8.2k |
|---|---|
Safety constraints require read-only access to Excel files. How do I verify the exact code token without altering any state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_ba... | 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... |
I have inspected the candidate records but still need to validate quality constraints. How do I check the metadata filters on these sources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Sou... | 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... |
Although I could compare results, I lack the field structure. Why is inspecting the schema the correct next move for this consistency check?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source Stat... | This operation handles fields, types, and structure while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema, discover fields. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects:... |
How can I confirm that the retrieved records align with the expected field definitions in this CSV-based schema management task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare... | This operation handles matching records while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: search structured records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: l... |
With only two steps left, which action best resolves the split context to map field definitions and compatibility by identifying sections and structural landmarks?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_n... | Invoke the candidate to determine sections and structural landmarks from the available resources.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: lan... |
Since my previous search was ambiguous, how should I proceed to locate the specific pages or ranges needed to validate quality constraints and resolve identifier variations?
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 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 determine the next workflow step. Should I inspect the selected resource directly or check the catalog first to ensure I am looking at the right source?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"act... | 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... |
One step remains. How do I handle the near-duplicate symbols in this code to correctly determine event delivery and retry behavior?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source Stat... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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 (integer... |
I have one candidate result but need to confirm field compatibility. What is the direct next step to inspect this result thoroughly?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "loo... | 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)... |
The current snippet lacks context for failure recovery. How can I retrieve the missing surrounding information without starting a new search from scratch?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "... | 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... |
My goal is to extract the correct technical instruction. Given conflicting signals, should I compare the results or look for structural landmarks first?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial... | 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... |
Considering the schema ambiguity and exhausted searches, how should I update task requirements and coverage to reflect the current state of data processing needs?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_fa... | The operation produces a reliable result for task requirements and coverage under current constraints.. Capabilities: update requirements. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effe... |
Given the safety constraints on local state writes and the mixed modality of sources, what is the correct next operation to determine if the current evidence set is sufficient for the access rules?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length... | 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... |
I have already inspected multiple CSV passages and confirmed requirement completion. What is the appropriate terminal action to finalize the selected result regarding these access permissions?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "lon... | 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 prioritize planning the next retrieval step over expanding the context, given that my previous searches were broad and failed to resolve the recovery procedure?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"ac... | 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 the availability of resources to confirm the absence of certain access control definitions without introducing side effects into the current task state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"ac... | 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 unresolved contradictions between Excel sources, what is the highest priority action to retrieve relevant content for consistency checks?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"acti... | Invoke the candidate to determine the 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... |
My previous attempt to locate a specific identifier was ambiguous due to schema issues. How should I proceed to find the exact token required for this data transformation?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": ... | 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 manage resource lifecycle limits, how should I filter the available metadata catalogs to enumerate records effectively with only one step left?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "ope... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of resource metadata and filters.. Capabilities: search metadata, filter sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional),... |
What is the next action to inspect the fields and types of the structured source for the data transformation join?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "stat... | 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 have a SQLite source and need to find specific rows for validation. What is the correct next operation to query these records?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery... | 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... |
To verify consistency across documents, I need to understand the layout of this PDF. How should I proceed to map out its sections?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_l... | This operation handles sections and structural landmarks while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: lan... |
My goal is to confirm if certain access rules are missing from this report. Which step should I take next to locate the relevant page ranges?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
So... | The operation produces a reliable result for the relevant pages or ranges under current constraints.. Capabilities: search document pages, retrieve passages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: re... |
With the schema already known and sources selected, how do I retrieve the latest field definitions from this text-based 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": "wea... | The operation produces a reliable result for the selected resource under current constraints.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optiona... |
I must check version compatibility without altering local state. Given the mixed modality and safety constraints, what is the safe next move regarding code symbols?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"a... | 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... |
Having inspected partial contexts and found near-duplicates, what should I do now to thoroughly examine the remaining candidate result for version issues?
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 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 update the requirement tracking or expand the context to handle failure recovery? Distinguish why expanding context is the precise next move over updating governance.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Ag... | Use this candidate when the task requires missing surrounding context.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read. Arguments: result i... |
I have inspected multiple sources but haven't confirmed if they agree on resource limits. How do I verify the conflict between these results before finalizing?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: ... | Invoke the candidate to determine agreement or conflict between results from the available resources.. Capabilities: compare evidence, detect contradictions. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Si... |
With four steps left and disputed requirements, what is the priority operation to update task coverage for event 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... | 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 attempt on CSV data, how do we verify if current evidence is sufficient to resolve schema ambiguity for technical instructions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discover... | 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... |
Requirements are complete. Which catalog-based action finalizes the selection for failure recovery using mixed sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step"... | 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 ... |
One step remains. What is the best next move to find exact field definitions in the CSV despite long document obstacles?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "... | 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... |
What direct action lists available resources to identify the latest technical instruction value amid version noise?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"available_... | Use this candidate when the task requires the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
How can we surface relevant content regarding validation constraints without explicitly saying 'search' or 'retrieve'?
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 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... |
Indirectly, what goal-oriented action resolves the workflow token contradiction using known CSV sources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source State: {"available_modalitie... | 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... |
Combining state and constraints, what metadata filter identifies the correct instruction record in Excel files with long needles?
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 resource metadata and filters under current constraints.. Capabilities: search metadata. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: metadata catalog required. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object requ... |
Given the strict read-only side-effect constraint and the Excel modality, what is the precise next step to inspect fields, types, and structure without mutating state?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "... | 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 prior ranges and facing near-duplicates in known Excel sources, what specific retrieval action is needed next to locate matching records with lexical precision?
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 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 ... |
To determine access rules via PDF structural landmarks rather than full-text content search, what is the correct next move to inspect sections while preserving task state?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "st... | This operation handles sections and structural landmarks while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: inspect document structure, discover sections. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: r... |
How can I verify event delivery behavior by pinpointing the specific PDF page ranges that contain the retry logic, ensuring the result is grounded in evidence?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active... | 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 only one step remaining and partial version compatibility requirements, what priority action must be taken to finalize the selection of the correct resource?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"ph... | 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 to resolve workflow contradictions, how do I reliably recover by inspecting code symbols and definitions to clarify the next step?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name"... | 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... |
From the available catalog of resources, what is the next candidate result needed to assess resource limits and lifecycle constraints for accurate planning?
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 a candidate result.. Capabilities: inspect evidence. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. Arguments: claim (st... |
What is the immediate next action to retrieve the missing surrounding context required to fully interpret the technical instruction from the snippets?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase":... | 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... |
With two code sources inspected and requirements complete, what operation should I run to check for agreement or conflict between the transformation results?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "sour... | 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... |
Given stale assessments and partial requirement coverage on field definitions in Excel data, how should I update my tracking of task completion?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retri... | 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 ensure data quality validation is complete. What action allows me to determine if the current single piece of evidence is sufficient for this goal?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family"... | 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... |
With zero steps remaining and version compatibility checks finished, but four unresolved items noted, what operation should finalize the selected result?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": fal... | 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 read-only safety constraints and contradictory code evidence, what is the best next information-gathering step to resolve the data transformation ambiguity?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieva... | 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),... |
After checking eight mixed-source passages and completing most consistency checks, what should I do to handle the remaining two unresolved resource discrepancies?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_fa... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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) |
Rather than re-searching known text sources, what precise move identifies the relevant content needed to confirm consistency across the documents?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery",... | Use this candidate when the task requires the relevant content.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer optional), query (stri... |
How can I verify the exact token for a field definition by inspecting the selected Excel source without altering its current state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "w... | 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 only one step remaining, which operation should I prioritize to identify the correct metadata filters for recovery?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compatibility"}
... | 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 my previous attempt was incomplete, what specific inspection should I run to clarify the structure of the mixed sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak",... | The operation produces a reliable result for fields, types, and structure under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Ar... |
I need to find matching records but don't know the full catalog; which discovery or retrieval step comes next?
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"}
Agent... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of matching records.. Capabilities: search structured records, filter records. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: schema known. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments:... |
What is the immediate next action to map the sections and structural landmarks of the current document?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["pdf", "meta... | 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 ... |
To handle this failure, which pages or ranges in the selected PDF should I target for extraction 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 State: {"phase": "sy... | 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 the absence of certain elements in the selected resource without altering the current state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Age... | 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... |
I aim to recover from a failure by understanding symbols and definitions; what indirect step helps achieve this goal?
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 State... | 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... |
Combining the disputed requirements with the split context constraint, how do I validate the candidate result effectively?
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... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on a candidate result.. Capabilities: inspect evidence, verify provenance. Accepts: evidence candidates. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: candidate evidence required. Side effects: read. A... |
Given the PDF modality and read-only safety constraints, which operation retrieves missing surrounding context without 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": "enu... | 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... |
After checking multiple sources, how do I verify if the collected findings agree or conflict before updating my tracking state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_e... | 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 finalize the selection now or update requirement coverage first to ensure all task criteria are met safely?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band... | 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 confirm that the telemetry data from the structured source is sufficient to satisfy the trace requirements?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State:... | This operation handles whether available information is sufficient while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. S... |
With limited steps remaining, should I plan further retrieval or directly select the best result based on current quality checks?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest... | The operation produces a reliable result for the selected result or next action under current constraints.. Capabilities: finalize selection, emit terminal result. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh ... |
After an ambiguous search, what is the best next step to resolve contradictions in the telemetry data with one move left?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_le... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the best next information-gathering step.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (string optional),... |
Which catalog operation lists the available resources to check field definitions and compatibility for schema management?
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", "ste... | 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) |
What is the next action to find relevant content that clarifies the conflicting telemetry observations?
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_f... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the relevant content.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer optional), quer... |
Which specific operation should be used to locate the exact identifier required for the data transformation?
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... | Use this candidate when the task requires an exact name, code, or token.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: case sensitive (boolea... |
What is the appropriate next step to identify the necessary resource attributes for the workflow?
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"}
Agent State: {"pha... | Invoke the candidate to determine resource metadata and filters from the available resources.. 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... |
How should I proceed to understand the column layout and data types for the access control rules?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "source_discovery"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": [... | Invoke the candidate to determine fields, types, and structure from the available resources.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments:... |
Given the completed requirements, what operation finds the matching records in the CSV file for transformation?
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}, {"... | 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... |
Considering the side-effect constraints, how do I safely inspect the structural landmarks of the PDF document?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "l... | 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 (... |
Since I have checked some evidence, what remains to verify the page ranges for event retry behavior?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_na... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the relevant pages or ranges.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page range (array required... |
Should I finalize the selection or continue reading the selected resource to clarify 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"}
Agent State: {"p... | This operation handles the selected resource while preserving the current task state.. 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... |
How can I verify that the symbols and definitions in the code are compatible with the version changes?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["text", ... | 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 step left, which operation should I prioritize to validate the candidate result before attempting recovery?
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", "ste... | 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... |
After that ambiguous attempt, how do I recover by retrieving the missing context needed for telemetry trace requirements?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"... | 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... |
To resolve conflicts in resource limits, which catalog-based operation best determines agreement between the inspected passages?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source Stat... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on agreement or conflict between results.. Capabilities: compare evidence. Accepts: evidence. Returns: evidence comparison. Evidence role: evidence synthesis. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: multiple evidence required. Side effects: none. Arguments: c... |
What is the immediate next action to update coverage and finalize the technical instruction requirements?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ... | Use this candidate when the task requires task requirements and coverage.. Capabilities: update requirements, track coverage. Accepts: evidence, agent state. Returns: governance state. Evidence role: governance update. Prerequisites: evidence inspected. Constraints: tracked requirements required. Side effects: local st... |
Is the current information sufficient to meet the telemetry trace requirements, or should I gather more evidence?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "sta... | 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 can I conclude the validation process and lock in the final result given the quality constraints?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_na... | 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 clarify access rules, what strategy should guide my next move to find the precise permission code?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["code", "met... | 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... |
Considering the partial source list, what operational choice identifies the right resource for the next workflow step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
A... | The operation produces a reliable result for the available resources under current constraints.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
Given the side-effect constraints and CSV modality, how should I proceed to find the relevant content for version compatibility?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_e... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the relevant content.. Capabilities: search content. Accepts: text, pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: indexed sources required. Side effects: read. Arguments: limit (integer optional... |
I have checked several records but need an exact token. What operation is safe to perform next given my stale assessment state?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_leng... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of an exact name, code, or token.. Capabilities: exact pattern search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: case sensitive ... |
Should I inspect metadata filters or read content directly to resolve resource limits, distinguishing the precise move from alternatives?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "resul... | 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 can I verify event retry behavior by examining fields and structure, ensuring I do not finalize prematurely?
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"}
Age... | 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 only two steps left, what is the priority action to match access control records in Excel without wasting budget?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verificati... | 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 last attempt was ambiguous. How do I recover by checking document sections to validate quality constraints in the PDF?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"... | The operation produces a reliable result for sections and structural landmarks under current constraints.. Capabilities: inspect document structure. Accepts: pdf. Returns: document structure. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Argume... |
Which catalog-based operation helps me select the right pages for data transformation when sources are mixed and unknown?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_s... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the relevant pages or ranges.. Capabilities: search document pages, retrieve passages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page ra... |
Next, how do I inspect the selected code resource to satisfy telemetry requirements after joining evidence?
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 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... |
I need to inspect the code structure to find specific symbols and definitions for validation purposes. What operation should I use?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery"... | 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... |
Since my previous assessment is stale and I have multiple evidence snippets, how do I look at a specific candidate result to verify access permissions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "too... | 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 am working on failure recovery but lack full context from the PDFs. How can I get the missing surrounding details needed for synthesis?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source St... | 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... |
I have contradictory data from different sources and zero steps remaining. How do I check if these results agree or conflict for consistency verification?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": ... | 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... |
I need to update my requirements coverage without modifying external state. Which read-only operation tracks task progress for schema management?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use"... | 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... |
I have inspected one passage partially. Given the disputed status of my requirements, how do I determine if the available information is sufficient?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "... | 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... |
My assessment is fresh and requirements are complete. Should I finalize the selection now or continue inspecting resource lifecycle details?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "re... | 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... |
I have no evidence yet and only two steps left to verify absence in a long document. What is the best next step to gather information?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "ab... | 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... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.