anchor stringlengths 723 2.15k | positive stringlengths 153 8.2k |
|---|---|
With four steps left and stale assessments, prioritize the next move to resolve schema ambiguity for event retry rules. Should we inspect available resources or plan further retrieval?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "... | Invoke the candidate to determine the available resources from the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object optional), scope (string required) |
After ambiguous snippets, I need the specific technical instruction. With one step remaining, how do I recover by accessing the relevant content despite split context obstacles?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": ... | The operation produces a reliable result for 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... |
I have contradictory evidence but need an exact token. Which catalog-oriented operation should I perform next to locate the precise identifier within the structured records?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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... |
Next action: retrieve resource metadata and filters to clarify access control rules. This will help enumerate sources for the permission review.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governa... | 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... |
I need to examine fields, types, and structure of the spreadsheet to understand event retry behavior. What is the direct operation to inspect this schema?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_suffic... | 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... |
I want to find rows that match the transformation criteria. How can I identify these matching records in the CSV without using the obvious verb 'search'?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": tru... | 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 find the technical instruction. Since the document is mixed-modality, how should I approach locating the sections and structural landmarks?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "t... | 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... |
Task: version compatibility check. State: contradictory snippets only. Constraint: PDF source. What next operation retrieves the relevant pages or ranges to join the context?
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... |
Given the side-effect constraints, what read-only operation should I perform to inspect the selected Excel resource for event retry behavior?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operati... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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... |
I have checked four sources but face near-duplicates. Given my progress, which operation best resolves the remaining symbol definition ambiguities in the code?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_famil... | 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)... |
Should I finalize the selection or inspect a candidate result first? Distinguish the precise next move from the tempting alternative of searching content again.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"activ... | 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 the consistency across sources by retrieving the missing surrounding context that was split during the initial analysis of the Excel data?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state... | Invoke the candidate to determine missing surrounding context from the available resources.. Capabilities: expand context, resolve split context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context requi... |
With only two steps left, what is the priority operation to determine if the contradictory code findings agree or conflict regarding data quality validation?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name"... | 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... |
My previous attempt was ambiguous due to version noise. How should I update my task requirements to recover and correctly assess coverage for version compatibility?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_... | 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... |
Without naming a tool, what catalog-oriented operation should I use to determine if the available information is sufficient to define the next workflow automation step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Ag... | 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 concise next action to finalize the selected result for the consistency check across the complementary Excel sources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source State: {... | 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... |
Given the stale assessment and split context in failure recovery, what is the best next information-gathering step to resolve contradictions?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operatio... | Use this candidate when the task requires the 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... |
Since the current source inventory is partial and we need relevant technical instructions, how do we identify the available resources?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evidence"}
Source State... | 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) |
To ensure the data transformation is correct despite version noise, how do we determine the relevant content from PDFs?
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 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... |
For validation constraints in data quality, find the exact code token in the sqlite source while resolving semantic paraphrasing obstacles.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Source S... | 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... |
Without side effects, use metadata filters to check consistency across text sources since the source inventory is only partially known.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery"}
Sourc... | 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... |
After checking four searches and two passages, what fields and types remain in the excel file for resource lifecycle management?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak... | Use this candidate when the task requires fields, types, and structure.. Capabilities: inspect structured schema, discover fields. Accepts: csv, excel, sqlite. Returns: schema. Evidence role: structure discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: structured source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: inc... |
Instead of listing all sources again, filter the excel records directly to find matching entries for field definition compatibility checks.
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
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... |
How can we verify the workflow step by examining the structural landmarks and sections within the selected PDF document?
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 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 conflicting identifiers, what is the priority action to locate the specific technical instruction pages?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradic... | 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 ambiguous results on event retry behavior, what is the best way to recover by selecting the correct 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}... | 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... |
What catalog operation should be used to inspect symbols and definitions for the technical instruction?
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": "s... | 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 a candidate result for version compatibility?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["pdf", "metadata"], "ev... | 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... |
What direct step is needed to retrieve missing surrounding context for failure 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", "step": 2}, {"action_family": "tool_u... | Use this candidate when the task requires missing surrounding context.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read. Arguments: result i... |
How can I determine if there is agreement or conflict between results regarding 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": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phas... | 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... |
What goal-oriented step should be taken to verify task requirements and coverage for the data transformation?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name":... | 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... |
Combining current state and constraints, what operation checks if available information is sufficient for the technical instruction?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "... | 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... |
Given the fresh assessment and code modality, which read-only operation safely resolves the contradiction without altering state?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source Sta... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the selected result or next action.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment required. Side ... |
After one prior search with stale assessment, what next step best handles schema ambiguity in failure recovery?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the best next information-gathering step.. Capabilities: plan retrieval. Accepts: agent state, text. Returns: plan. Evidence role: none. Prerequisites: objective available. Constraints: none. Side effects: local state write. Arguments: objective (string required), priori... |
Should I list available resources to resolve version noise, or is inspecting a candidate result more precise for this recovery task?
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 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 single observed code snippet to confirm field compatibility despite near-duplicate obstacles?
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... |
With only one step left and requirements complete, which exact token lookup prioritizes final accuracy over broader inspection?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficient"}
Source ... | 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... |
After ambiguous identifier attempts, how do I use metadata filters to recover accurate CSV field definitions?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["csv", "meta... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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 opt... |
From the partial catalog, what structural inspection reveals the CSV fields needed for data transformation?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery"}
Source State: {"availa... | 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... |
Next, how do I locate matching structured records to verify absence for this failure recovery case?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["te... | 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 ... |
What operation should I run to examine the structural landmarks and sections of the selected document to check field definitions?
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... | 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... |
Given the version noise in the current materials, what is the appropriate way to identify the correct page ranges for validation constraints?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operati... | This operation handles the 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 (... |
To ensure I am working with the right version compatibility details, what is the best next move regarding the selected resource?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "insufficient"}
Source State: {"avai... | The operation produces a reliable result for the selected resource under current constraints.. 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: of... |
Considering the access control rules and the need for exact identifiers, what should I do next to inspect the relevant symbols and definitions?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "join"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieval"}
Source State: {"avail... | 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... |
With safety constraints on side effects and a focus on telemetry, how should I proceed to verify the candidate result for trace requirements?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operatio... | 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... |
Having checked the initial snippets but lacking full context on resource limits, what is the next logical step to fill the missing gaps?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of missing surrounding context.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read. Arguments: r... |
Should I compare the conflicting evidence about access permissions directly, or would re-assessing the overall sufficiency be more effective?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operati... | 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 resource management requirements are fully covered by the current evidence before concluding the task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak... | 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 eight steps left, should we verify if the current evidence is enough to handle the data transformation or keep gathering?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compa... | Invoke the candidate to determine whether available information is sufficient from the available resources.. Capabilities: assess evidence. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. S... |
After that unclear attempt, how do we lock in the final result while meeting the validation and quality constraints?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"available_moda... | The operation produces a reliable result for the selected result or next action under current constraints.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment ... |
Which catalog-based action best advances our failure recovery plan without naming a specific tool?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {"pha... | 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 resources are currently accessible for checking version compatibility across these mixed formats?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["... | 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) |
Find the relevant content to validate quality constraints immediately, as no steps remain.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "latest_value_selection"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "short", "state_name": "initial"}
Source State: {"available_modalities": ["sqlite", "metadat... | 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 we pinpoint the exact permission token in the text with one step left?
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", "resu... | Invoke the candidate to determine an exact name, code, or token from the available resources.. Capabilities: exact pattern search, identifier search. Accepts: text, code. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: query available. Constraints: textual source required. Side effects:... |
To manage resource lifecycle limits, which metadata filters help us find the missing details in one step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase"... | 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... |
Considering the schema ambiguity, how do we inspect the field structures to enable the required data transformation?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "source_discovery"}
Source State: {"available... | 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... |
Given the need to resolve contradictions in access control data from a CSV, which read-only operation should be used to match records without modifying state?
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 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... |
After checking partial sources for field compatibility but lacking full structural context, what is the next read-only step to inspect sections and landmarks?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "c... | 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 ... |
With mixed evidence and no steps left, should I finalize the selection or use a read-only operation to retrieve relevant pages from the PDF source?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_us... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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 selected resource is suitable for failure recovery by reading its content directly, given that other operations are less precise?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": fal... | This operation handles the selected resource while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optional), reso... |
With zero remaining steps and a focus on code symbols, which read-only inspection of code structure should be prioritized over planning or metadata search?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initia... | 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... |
After an ambiguous attempt to locate technical instructions, how should I recover by inspecting a candidate result from the PDF source to ensure accuracy?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "inspection", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "partial_evi... | 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... |
To identify missing context for the next workflow step, which read-only operation should expand the current snippets to include surrounding information?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "enumerate_sources"}
Agent State: {"phase": "... | 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 concise next action to compare multiple telemetry results for agreement or conflict, ensuring no side effects occur during this synthesis step?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "initial"}
Sou... | 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... |
Given the evidence I have inspected for failure recovery, what operation should I run next to update task requirements and verify coverage?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation"... | 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... |
With one passage from a database source on event retries in hand, how can I confirm if the collected details are enough to proceed?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compa... | 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 reach a definitive conclusion about the technical instructions, what is the best way to finalize my choice based on the complementary sources found?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_dis... | 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... |
Considering the disputed requirement progress and exhausted PDF searches, what planning step should I take to find the missing technical instruction details?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active":... | The operation produces a reliable result for 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... |
For a read-only operation that avoids side effects, which method allows me to safely check the available resources for the failure recovery task?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", ... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the available resources.. Capabilities: list sources, discover sources. Accepts: metadata. Returns: source list. Evidence role: source discovery. Prerequisites: none. Constraints: none. Side effects: read. Arguments: filters (object required), scope (string optional) |
After checking four times with no new evidence, how should I plan my next step to retrieve relevant content for validating data quality constraints?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_u... | 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... |
Instead of broadening the search again, how do I precisely locate the exact code token for the technical instruction in the available sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "... | 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 use resource metadata filters to verify the accuracy of the technical instruction details I am analyzing?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_... | 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... |
Given only two steps remain to resolve this failure, what is the highest priority operation to inspect the field types and structure of the selected structured source?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent... | 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:... |
After the previous lookup failed to yield clear results, how can I reliably retrieve the specific matching records needed to verify version compatibility in the CSV data?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"a... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on 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. Arg... |
Since the catalog is incomplete, which operation should I use to identify the relevant structural sections within the mixed-format resources for the next workflow step?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"act... | 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 immediate next action to examine the relevant page ranges in the PDF to clarify the field definitions and compatibility issues?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "contradiction"}
Source State: {"a... | This candidate supports controlled inspection of the relevant pages or ranges.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page range (array required... |
I need to see the content of the selected text resource to resolve the access rule contradictions. What operation should I perform?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "terminal_readiness", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "fresh_sufficien... | Use this candidate when the task requires the selected resource.. Capabilities: read content. Accepts: text, code. Returns: content. Evidence role: evidence inspection. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: local source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: offset (integer optional), resource (string required... |
How can I get a view of the symbols and definitions inside the code source to check for field compatibility without using obvious search verbs?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", ... | This operation handles 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... |
Goal: Confirm the candidate result's validity for version compatibility. Given the stale assessment, which operation lets me inspect this specific evidence item?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "enumerate_records"}
Agent State: {... | 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... |
Task: Access control review. State: Partial context observed. Constraint: No steps remaining. How do I obtain the missing surrounding context from the complementary sources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compare"}
Agent State:... | 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... |
Given the strict requirement for a read-only side-effect profile and text-based inputs, which operation should be used to determine if the inspected evidence sources agree or conflict without altering local state?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "lookup_semantic"}
Agent State: {"phase": "planning", ... | 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... |
After reviewing multiple text sources for version details, I have verified most requirements. What is the next operation needed to update the governance state regarding coverage and compatibility constraints?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "... | 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 continue searching for exact identifiers in the structured source, or is it more appropriate to assess whether the single piece of evidence already found is sufficient to define field compatibility?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_us... | 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... |
With contradictory evidence observed from two sources regarding access rules, how can I verify the provenance of these findings to select the correct final result without further retrieval?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "wea... | This operation handles the selected result or next action while preserving the current task state.. Capabilities: finalize selection. Accepts: assessment, governance state. Returns: terminal result. Evidence role: terminal decision. Prerequisites: requirements complete. Constraints: fresh sufficient assessment required... |
With only four steps remaining and a need to resolve version noise in document analysis, what is the highest-priority action to plan the next information-gathering step effectively?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "compatibility"}... | 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... |
My previous attempt to locate specific data transformations was ambiguous. How can I recover by listing all available resources to identify the correct source for the required processing logic?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": ... | 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) |
I need to retrieve relevant content for a data transformation task but lack a clear catalog view. What operation should I use to identify the specific records needed without naming a tool?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak... | 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 next action to verify an exact identifier token across the consistency check sources to ensure uniformity?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "compatibility"}
Agent State: {"phase": "governance", "question_length_band": ... | 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 ... |
Given the stale assessment and partial progress on telemetry requirements, what is the next step to locate resource metadata for the trace filters?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_us... | Use this candidate when the task requires 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) |
Since the source inventory is known but no evidence has been gathered yet, how do I determine the field definitions and types in the selected structured source?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "lookup_exact"}
Agent State: {"phase": "source_discovery", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "... | 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:... |
I need to resolve contradictions between complementary sources regarding resource limits. What is the correct next move to find matching records in the structured data?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "s... | 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... |
The task involves event delivery in a long document, but only snippets are available. How should I identify the relevant sections and structural landmarks to find the retry behavior details?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "we... | 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... |
Assuming a read-only constraint to avoid side effects, how do I retrieve the specific page ranges from the PDF that define 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, "op... | Apply this capability when the next decision depends on the relevant pages or ranges.. Capabilities: search document pages. Accepts: pdf. Returns: evidence candidates. Evidence role: candidate discovery. Prerequisites: source selected. Constraints: pdf source required. Side effects: read. Arguments: page range (array r... |
Having checked multiple snippets but needing full context on field compatibility, what is the next step to inspect the content of the selected text resource?
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 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... |
Instead of planning a new retrieval strategy, what is the precise next move to inspect code structures for symbols and definitions related to resource lifecycle?
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "absence_verification"}
Agent State: {"phase": "synthesis", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name":... | This operation handles symbols and definitions while preserving the current task state.. 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. Argu... |
How can I verify if the candidate results found during the failure recovery inspection actually confirm the expected recovery behavior?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": false, "operation": "... | This operation handles 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 eight steps left, prioritize expanding the context around the selected snippet to resolve the contradiction in the technical instructions.
Decision: route
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "contradiction_resolution"}
Agent State: {"phase": "retrieval", "question_length_band": "long", "state_name": "retrieva... | Invoke the candidate to determine missing surrounding context from the available resources.. Capabilities: expand context. Accepts: evidence candidates, evidence. Returns: evidence. Evidence role: context expansion. Prerequisites: evidence candidate selected. Constraints: incomplete context required. Side effects: read... |
After an ambiguous attempt on access rules, how should I proceed to verify if the inspected evidence sources agree or conflict?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}]
Plan: {"active": true, "operation": "absence_v... | 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... |
To update requirement coverage with two steps remaining, which operation best assesses the current task state against available resources?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "resu... | 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... |
Is the current evidence set sufficient to determine the next workflow step, or do we need further validation before proceeding?
Decision: route
History: [{"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 0}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak", "step": 1}, {"action_family": "tool_use", "result": "weak"... | Use this candidate when the task requires whether available information is sufficient.. Capabilities: assess evidence, validate sufficiency. Accepts: evidence, governance state. Returns: assessment. Evidence role: governance assessment. Prerequisites: requirements updated. Constraints: canonical evidence set required. ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.