# Training Guide

## Training objective

JL-AgentBehavior-10K is designed to influence the control policy of a code-capable model. It should not be expected to create coding competence or repository understanding from scratch.

The primary learning targets are:

- next valid action;
- tool name and argument selection;
- bounded plan construction;
- failure classification;
- repair action selection;
- evidence-aware final reporting.

## Recommended preparation

### Filter by evidence tier

Version 1 contains only `silver_structural` records. When later releases add executed data, preserve provenance and construct explicit mixtures rather than silently concatenating tiers.

### Normalize tool schemas

Map abstract tools to the deployment runtime:

| Dataset action | Runtime mapping example |
|---|---|
| `search` | ripgrep wrapper, repository search API, or language server |
| `read_file` | bounded file reader |
| `apply_patch` | patch editor |
| `run_tests` | sandboxed command runner |
| `git_diff` | version-control diff tool |
| `request_approval` | runtime permission gate |

Do not train one schema and deploy another without an adapter.

### Loss masking

A conservative loss policy is:

| Content | Default loss |
|---|---|
| System policy | Mask |
| User task | Mask |
| Repository/environment context | Mask |
| External tool output | Mask |
| Assistant observation summary | Optional / low weight |
| Tool selection and arguments | Train |
| Failure classification | Train |
| Patch strategy | Train |
| Final reporting contract | Train |

Training on external tool outputs as assistant tokens can teach fabricated observations.

## Mixture strategy

A reasonable first experiment:

- 60–75% real code or repository SFT;
- 10–20% JL trajectory records;
- 5–10% JL repair records;
- preference records in a separate preference-optimization stage;
- remaining weight allocated to verified tool-use data.

These are starting points, not established optimal weights. Evaluate several mixtures.

## Curriculum

### Stage A: Grounding and tool validity

Train on:

- `repository_grounding`;
- `tool_selection_execution`;
- simple `test_verification`.

Goal: reduce invalid or premature actions.

### Stage B: Bounded execution

Add:

- `planning_decomposition`;
- `bounded_code_editing`;
- medium-difficulty trajectories.

Goal: improve multi-step control without expanding scope.

### Stage C: Recovery and review

Add:

- `failure_diagnosis_repair`;
- `code_review_security`;
- `permission_scope_safety`.

Goal: improve behavior after failure and at trust boundaries.

### Stage D: Preference optimization

Use chosen/rejected records only after the SFT model can reliably emit the runtime tool format.

## Sampling

Avoid sampling only by dataset size. Use behavior-aware sampling so that the 200 final-reporting examples and 400 permission examples are not lost in the larger editing mixture.

Possible weighting:

```text
sample_weight = base_weight
              * evidence_tier_weight
              * behavior_balance_weight
              * difficulty_weight
```

Do not upweight synthetic rare categories so aggressively that they dominate the model’s natural code distribution.

## Chat conversion

Run:

```bash
python scripts/format_sft.py data/train.jsonl train_sft.jsonl
```

The output is a conservative reference view with `system`, `user`, and `assistant` messages. Inspect it and adapt the chat template before training.

## Data collator requirements

The collator should support:

- assistant-only loss;
- tool-call JSON boundaries;
- maximum sequence control;
- truncation that preserves task constraints and target actions;
- optional per-record weights;
- logging by `primary_behavior`.

A truncation policy that removes the verification or repair tail defeats the dataset’s purpose.

## Baselines

Always retain:

1. unchanged base model;
2. same model trained on an equal-size generic code-instruction control;
3. full behavior mixture;
4. behavior ablations.

Match tokens or optimizer steps across controls where possible. Comparing 10K agent records against a much smaller control confounds data type with training volume.

## Known failure modes

- **Narration inflation:** model produces long plans but no useful action.
- **Tool ritualization:** model always searches and tests even when not needed.
- **Synthetic imitation:** model repeats template language.
- **False execution:** model states expected observations as completed results.
- **Over-refusal:** safety supervision triggers approval for reversible local work.
- **Patch underfitting:** scope control becomes reluctance to modify all necessary files.
- **Repair looping:** model learns repair vocabulary without changing the failed action.

Measure these effects directly.