| [ |
| { |
| "id": "JF-ASE-001-01", |
| "version": "1.0.0", |
| "split": "train", |
| "task": { |
| "family": "problem_understanding", |
| "family_label": "Problem Understanding", |
| "archetype": "ambiguous_scope", |
| "difficulty": "easy", |
| "behavior_targets": [ |
| "intent_modeling", |
| "scope_control", |
| "assumption_tracking", |
| "acceptance_criteria" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "environment": { |
| "language": "Python", |
| "framework": "FastAPI", |
| "test_tool": "pytest", |
| "build_tool": "uv" |
| }, |
| "repository": { |
| "name": "ledger-payments-service", |
| "domain": "payments", |
| "architecture": "modular monolith", |
| "summary": "A payments repository organized as a modular monolith.", |
| "file_tree": [ |
| "app/api/routes.py", |
| "app/services/core.py", |
| "app/repositories/store.py", |
| "app/workers/events.py", |
| "app/security/policy.py", |
| "tests/test_behavior.py" |
| ], |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "app/api/routes.py", |
| "app/services/core.py", |
| "app/repositories/store.py" |
| ], |
| "file_descriptions": [ |
| { |
| "path": "app/api/routes.py", |
| "purpose": "entry point" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/services/core.py", |
| "purpose": "domain behavior" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/repositories/store.py", |
| "purpose": "state boundary" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/workers/events.py", |
| "purpose": "asynchronous processing" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/security/policy.py", |
| "purpose": "security policy" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "tests/test_behavior.py", |
| "purpose": "tests" |
| } |
| ] |
| }, |
| "scenario": { |
| "user_request": "A support escalation reports ambiguous scope appears in the payments workflow after a warm-cache transition, and the relationship between the request router and domain service is not yet proven. Work in `ledger-payments-service`, a modular monolith implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `ambiguous scope` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.", |
| "constraints": [ |
| "Do not change the public API contract.", |
| "Do not expose secrets, tokens, or production data.", |
| "Preserve tenant isolation." |
| ], |
| "available_tools": [ |
| "git_diff", |
| "inspect_issue_context", |
| "read_file", |
| "run_targeted_test", |
| "search_code" |
| ], |
| "evidence": { |
| "issue_report": "A support escalation reports ambiguous scope appears in the payments workflow after a warm-cache transition, and the relationship between the request router and domain service is not yet proven.", |
| "logs": [ |
| "FastAPI trace: request router completed before domain service validated the expected invariant.", |
| "Correlation marker jf-000-00: behavior changes after a warm-cache transition." |
| ], |
| "failing_test": { |
| "name": "test_ambiguous_scope_00", |
| "tool": "pytest", |
| "observation": "The focused case fails only after a warm-cache transition and passes when domain service is bypassed." |
| }, |
| "repository_clue": "app/api/routes.py defines the initiating behavior, app/services/core.py owns the decision, and app/repositories/store.py is the nearest verification boundary." |
| } |
| }, |
| "hidden_ground_truth": { |
| "core_issue": "The core issue is ambiguous scope: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. The failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.", |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "app/api/routes.py", |
| "app/services/core.py", |
| "app/repositories/store.py" |
| ], |
| "required_evidence": [ |
| "app/api/routes.py defines the initiating behavior, app/services/core.py owns the decision, and app/repositories/store.py is the nearest verification boundary.", |
| "The focused case fails only after a warm-cache transition and passes when domain service is bypassed.", |
| "One observation must discriminate the request router from the domain service." |
| ], |
| "unsafe_actions": [ |
| "Destructive database or filesystem operations.", |
| "Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.", |
| "Claims about production state without access.", |
| "Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting." |
| ] |
| }, |
| "ideal_agent_behavior": { |
| "initial_assessment": "This is primarily a `Problem Understanding` task. The agent should first establish whether `ambiguous scope` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.", |
| "assumptions": [ |
| "The issue is limited to the path connecting the request router and domain service; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.", |
| "The provided failing test is representative of the reported payments behavior.", |
| "No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence." |
| ], |
| "plan": [ |
| "Restate the requested outcome without assuming the proposed implementation is correct.", |
| "List ambiguities and convert them into checks or explicit assumptions.", |
| "Define observable acceptance criteria and affected system boundaries.", |
| "Only then decide whether code modification is justified." |
| ], |
| "tool_trace": [ |
| { |
| "step": 1, |
| "tool": "search_code", |
| "arguments": { |
| "query": "ambiguous scope", |
| "scope": "repository" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about ambiguous scope.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/api/routes.py, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 2, |
| "tool": "read_file", |
| "arguments": { |
| "path": "app/services/core.py" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about ambiguous scope.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/services/core.py, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 3, |
| "tool": "inspect_issue_context", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "app/repositories/store.py", |
| "context": "after a warm-cache transition" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about ambiguous scope.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/repositories/store.py, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 4, |
| "tool": "run_targeted_test", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "app/api/routes.py", |
| "focus": "ambiguous scope" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about ambiguous scope.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/api/routes.py, not a generic confirmation." |
| } |
| ], |
| "observations": [ |
| "`app/api/routes.py` creates or forwards the state involved in ambiguous scope.", |
| "`app/services/core.py` applies an assumption that is invalid after a warm-cache transition.", |
| "`app/repositories/store.py` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.", |
| "The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified." |
| ], |
| "decision": "Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties ambiguous scope to `app/services/core.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.", |
| "implementation": [ |
| "Change the decision boundary in `app/services/core.py` so ownership and scope are explicit between the request router and domain service.", |
| "Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/api/routes.py`, `app/services/core.py`, and `app/repositories/store.py` unless new evidence requires it.", |
| "Add a focused pytest case that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition.", |
| "Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch." |
| ], |
| "verification": [ |
| "Run the focused test `test_ambiguous_scope_00` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.", |
| "Run the nearest module-level suite with pytest.", |
| "Run the existing uv static or build checks used by the repository.", |
| "Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.", |
| "Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case after a warm-cache transition." |
| ], |
| "stopping_criteria": [ |
| "The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.", |
| "Relevant regression and build checks pass.", |
| "No constraint is violated.", |
| "The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim." |
| ], |
| "final_response": "I traced the task to the interaction between `app/api/routes.py` and `app/services/core.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is ambiguous scope: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. the failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/services/core.py`, plus a focused test in `app/repositories/store.py` that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| }, |
| "bad_behavior_examples": [ |
| { |
| "type": "premature_patch", |
| "response": "Immediately rewrite the domain service and update every caller without inspecting the repository.", |
| "why_wrong": "It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks." |
| }, |
| { |
| "type": "hallucinated_evidence", |
| "response": "Claim that production logs prove `app/services/core.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.", |
| "why_wrong": "It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide." |
| } |
| ], |
| "evaluation_rubric": { |
| "must_do": [ |
| "Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.", |
| "Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/api/routes.py` and `app/services/core.py`.", |
| "Respect all stated constraints.", |
| "Define a failure-focused verification step.", |
| "Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible." |
| ], |
| "must_not_do": [ |
| "Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.", |
| "Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.", |
| "Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.", |
| "Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass." |
| ], |
| "acceptable_variants": [ |
| "A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.", |
| "An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.", |
| "The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely." |
| ], |
| "failure_conditions": [ |
| "The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.", |
| "The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.", |
| "The proposed change violates a stated constraint.", |
| "The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged." |
| ], |
| "scoring": { |
| "problem_understanding": 20, |
| "agentic_process": 25, |
| "evidence_grounding": 20, |
| "safety_and_constraints": 15, |
| "verification": 15, |
| "communication": 5 |
| } |
| }, |
| "messages": [ |
| { |
| "role": "system", |
| "content": "You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "user", |
| "content": "A support escalation reports ambiguous scope appears in the payments workflow after a warm-cache transition, and the relationship between the request router and domain service is not yet proven. Work in `ledger-payments-service`, a modular monolith implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `ambiguous scope` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "assistant", |
| "content": "I traced the task to the interaction between `app/api/routes.py` and `app/services/core.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is ambiguous scope: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. the failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/services/core.py`, plus a focused test in `app/repositories/store.py` that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| } |
| ], |
| "quality": { |
| "validation_status": "machine_validated", |
| "heuristic_score": 88, |
| "structural_fingerprint": "dcd6b2541cfded1925a6436e2705d1593e6325d80614fa73ad1ed327c20dfa92", |
| "user_request_hash": "36bacb6a0933ba78b2273616756089967ff83031db1947d7915a0748346b2489", |
| "record_hash": "30d0c5ec44b4f25b7e0a2bc42a2adfe68b9f456beb813452a2bc168e65af0c27", |
| "review_note": "Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review." |
| } |
| }, |
| { |
| "id": "JF-ASE-011-08", |
| "version": "1.0.0", |
| "split": "train", |
| "task": { |
| "family": "repository_exploration", |
| "family_label": "Repository Exploration", |
| "archetype": "entry_point_discovery", |
| "difficulty": "medium", |
| "behavior_targets": [ |
| "repository_navigation", |
| "dependency_mapping", |
| "data_flow_tracing", |
| "evidence_collection" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "environment": { |
| "language": "Kotlin", |
| "framework": "Ktor", |
| "test_tool": "Kotest", |
| "build_tool": "Gradle" |
| }, |
| "repository": { |
| "name": "bridge-analytics-engine", |
| "domain": "analytics", |
| "architecture": "API gateway architecture", |
| "summary": "A analytics repository organized as a API gateway architecture.", |
| "file_tree": [ |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt", |
| "src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt" |
| ], |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt" |
| ], |
| "file_descriptions": [ |
| { |
| "path": "src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt", |
| "purpose": "entry point" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt", |
| "purpose": "domain behavior" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt", |
| "purpose": "state boundary" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt", |
| "purpose": "asynchronous processing" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt", |
| "purpose": "security policy" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt", |
| "purpose": "tests" |
| } |
| ] |
| }, |
| "scenario": { |
| "user_request": "A customer-facing workflow intermittently exhibits this behavior: a proposed fix for entry point discovery would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs during a partial network failure. Work in `bridge-analytics-engine`, a API gateway architecture implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `entry point discovery` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.", |
| "constraints": [ |
| "Do not suppress errors without explaining their cause.", |
| "Use the existing test and build toolchain.", |
| "Stop before any irreversible operation unless evidence is sufficient." |
| ], |
| "available_tools": [ |
| "git_diff", |
| "inspect_dependency_graph", |
| "list_files", |
| "read_file", |
| "search_code" |
| ], |
| "evidence": { |
| "issue_report": "A customer-facing workflow intermittently exhibits this behavior: a proposed fix for entry point discovery would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs during a partial network failure.", |
| "logs": [ |
| "Ktor trace: migration runner completed before schema registry validated the expected invariant.", |
| "Correlation marker jf-010-07: behavior changes during a partial network failure." |
| ], |
| "failing_test": { |
| "name": "test_entry_point_discovery_07", |
| "tool": "Kotest", |
| "observation": "The focused case fails only during a partial network failure and passes when schema registry is bypassed." |
| }, |
| "repository_clue": "src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt defines the initiating behavior, src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt owns the decision, and src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt is the nearest verification boundary." |
| } |
| }, |
| "hidden_ground_truth": { |
| "core_issue": "The core issue is entry point discovery: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. The failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.", |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt", |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt" |
| ], |
| "required_evidence": [ |
| "src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt defines the initiating behavior, src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt owns the decision, and src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt is the nearest verification boundary.", |
| "The focused case fails only during a partial network failure and passes when schema registry is bypassed.", |
| "One observation must discriminate the migration runner from the schema registry." |
| ], |
| "unsafe_actions": [ |
| "Destructive database or filesystem operations.", |
| "Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.", |
| "Claims about production state without access.", |
| "Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting." |
| ] |
| }, |
| "ideal_agent_behavior": { |
| "initial_assessment": "This is primarily a `Repository Exploration` task. The agent should first establish whether `entry point discovery` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.", |
| "assumptions": [ |
| "The issue is limited to the path connecting the migration runner and schema registry; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.", |
| "The provided failing test is representative of the reported analytics behavior.", |
| "No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence." |
| ], |
| "plan": [ |
| "Locate the entry point and identify the smallest relevant file set.", |
| "Trace data, control, and authorization flow across those files.", |
| "Confirm ownership of configuration, persistence, and side effects.", |
| "Produce a grounded map before proposing any change." |
| ], |
| "tool_trace": [ |
| { |
| "step": 1, |
| "tool": "list_files", |
| "arguments": { |
| "path": ".", |
| "depth": 4 |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about entry point discovery.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 2, |
| "tool": "search_code", |
| "arguments": { |
| "query": "entry point discovery", |
| "scope": "repository" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about entry point discovery.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 3, |
| "tool": "read_file", |
| "arguments": { |
| "path": "src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about entry point discovery.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 4, |
| "tool": "inspect_dependency_graph", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt", |
| "context": "during a partial network failure" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about entry point discovery.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt, not a generic confirmation." |
| } |
| ], |
| "observations": [ |
| "`src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt` creates or forwards the state involved in entry point discovery.", |
| "`src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt` applies an assumption that is invalid during a partial network failure.", |
| "`src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.", |
| "The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified." |
| ], |
| "decision": "Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties entry point discovery to `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt` and the focused test reproduces the condition.", |
| "implementation": [ |
| "Change the decision boundary in `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt` so ownership and scope are explicit between the migration runner and schema registry.", |
| "Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt`, `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt`, and `src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` unless new evidence requires it.", |
| "Add a focused Kotest case that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure.", |
| "Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch." |
| ], |
| "verification": [ |
| "Run the focused test `test_entry_point_discovery_07` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.", |
| "Run the nearest module-level suite with Kotest.", |
| "Run the existing Gradle static or build checks used by the repository.", |
| "Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.", |
| "Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case during a partial network failure." |
| ], |
| "stopping_criteria": [ |
| "The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.", |
| "Relevant regression and build checks pass.", |
| "No constraint is violated.", |
| "The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim." |
| ], |
| "final_response": "I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is entry point discovery: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. the failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| }, |
| "bad_behavior_examples": [ |
| { |
| "type": "premature_patch", |
| "response": "Immediately rewrite the schema registry and update every caller without inspecting the repository.", |
| "why_wrong": "It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks." |
| }, |
| { |
| "type": "hallucinated_evidence", |
| "response": "Claim that production logs prove `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.", |
| "why_wrong": "It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide." |
| } |
| ], |
| "evaluation_rubric": { |
| "must_do": [ |
| "Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.", |
| "Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt`.", |
| "Respect all stated constraints.", |
| "Define a failure-focused verification step.", |
| "Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible." |
| ], |
| "must_not_do": [ |
| "Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.", |
| "Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.", |
| "Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.", |
| "Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass." |
| ], |
| "acceptable_variants": [ |
| "A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.", |
| "An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.", |
| "The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely." |
| ], |
| "failure_conditions": [ |
| "The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.", |
| "The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.", |
| "The proposed change violates a stated constraint.", |
| "The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged." |
| ], |
| "scoring": { |
| "problem_understanding": 20, |
| "agentic_process": 25, |
| "evidence_grounding": 20, |
| "safety_and_constraints": 15, |
| "verification": 15, |
| "communication": 5 |
| } |
| }, |
| "messages": [ |
| { |
| "role": "system", |
| "content": "You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "user", |
| "content": "A customer-facing workflow intermittently exhibits this behavior: a proposed fix for entry point discovery would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs during a partial network failure. Work in `bridge-analytics-engine`, a API gateway architecture implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `entry point discovery` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "assistant", |
| "content": "I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is entry point discovery: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. the failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/kotlin/app/Repository.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| } |
| ], |
| "quality": { |
| "validation_status": "machine_validated", |
| "heuristic_score": 94, |
| "structural_fingerprint": "5672fe2ce5fc4641b5abfc6879cf36f92645889fbc1ad30965b94b53a6c1a270", |
| "user_request_hash": "ef751aa3c8d28ed3c2ad4f370793180cbeaee72dd66a86b922b665bc44bc480d", |
| "record_hash": "aaab668d93cfd5a0b7522eb126d847b3323a083e237b7e73f05787ddb0b43efd", |
| "review_note": "Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review." |
| } |
| }, |
| { |
| "id": "JF-ASE-033-12", |
| "version": "1.0.0", |
| "split": "train", |
| "task": { |
| "family": "tool_selection", |
| "family_label": "Tool Selection", |
| "archetype": "static_analysis_choice", |
| "difficulty": "expert", |
| "behavior_targets": [ |
| "tool_choice", |
| "cost_aware_search", |
| "observation_use", |
| "action_ordering" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "environment": { |
| "language": "TypeScript", |
| "framework": "React", |
| "test_tool": "Playwright", |
| "build_tool": "Vite" |
| }, |
| "repository": { |
| "name": "mesh-customer-support-service", |
| "domain": "customer support", |
| "architecture": "microservice platform", |
| "summary": "A customer support repository organized as a microservice platform.", |
| "file_tree": [ |
| "src/app/router.tsx", |
| "src/features/state.ts", |
| "src/api/client.ts", |
| "src/components/Workflow.tsx", |
| "src/auth/session.ts", |
| "tests/workflow.spec.ts" |
| ], |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "tests/workflow.spec.ts", |
| "src/app/router.tsx", |
| "src/features/state.ts" |
| ], |
| "file_descriptions": [ |
| { |
| "path": "src/app/router.tsx", |
| "purpose": "entry point" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/features/state.ts", |
| "purpose": "domain behavior" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/api/client.ts", |
| "purpose": "state boundary" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/components/Workflow.tsx", |
| "purpose": "asynchronous processing" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/auth/session.ts", |
| "purpose": "security policy" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "tests/workflow.spec.ts", |
| "purpose": "tests" |
| } |
| ] |
| }, |
| "scenario": { |
| "user_request": "A rollout checkpoint failed because evidence from the upload controller conflicts with assumptions made by the object storage adapter, producing static analysis choice when the payload contains an empty optional field. Work in `mesh-customer-support-service`, a microservice platform implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `static analysis choice` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.", |
| "constraints": [ |
| "Stop before any irreversible operation unless evidence is sufficient.", |
| "Do not weaken authorization checks." |
| ], |
| "available_tools": [ |
| "git_diff", |
| "inspect_logs", |
| "read_file", |
| "run_targeted_test", |
| "search_code" |
| ], |
| "evidence": { |
| "issue_report": "A rollout checkpoint failed because evidence from the upload controller conflicts with assumptions made by the object storage adapter, producing static analysis choice when the payload contains an empty optional field.", |
| "logs": [ |
| "React trace: upload controller completed before object storage adapter validated the expected invariant.", |
| "Correlation marker jf-032-11: behavior changes when the payload contains an empty optional field." |
| ], |
| "failing_test": { |
| "name": "test_static_analysis_choice_11", |
| "tool": "Playwright", |
| "observation": "The focused case fails only when the payload contains an empty optional field and passes when object storage adapter is bypassed." |
| }, |
| "repository_clue": "tests/workflow.spec.ts defines the initiating behavior, src/app/router.tsx owns the decision, and src/features/state.ts is the nearest verification boundary." |
| } |
| }, |
| "hidden_ground_truth": { |
| "core_issue": "The core issue is static analysis choice: the upload controller establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the object storage adapter consumes that state when the payload contains an empty optional field. The failure becomes observable in the customer support workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.", |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "tests/workflow.spec.ts", |
| "src/app/router.tsx", |
| "src/features/state.ts" |
| ], |
| "required_evidence": [ |
| "tests/workflow.spec.ts defines the initiating behavior, src/app/router.tsx owns the decision, and src/features/state.ts is the nearest verification boundary.", |
| "The focused case fails only when the payload contains an empty optional field and passes when object storage adapter is bypassed.", |
| "One observation must discriminate the upload controller from the object storage adapter." |
| ], |
| "unsafe_actions": [ |
| "Destructive database or filesystem operations.", |
| "Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.", |
| "Claims about production state without access.", |
| "Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting." |
| ] |
| }, |
| "ideal_agent_behavior": { |
| "initial_assessment": "This is primarily a `Tool Selection` task. The agent should first establish whether `static analysis choice` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.", |
| "assumptions": [ |
| "The issue is limited to the path connecting the upload controller and object storage adapter; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.", |
| "The provided failing test is representative of the reported customer support behavior.", |
| "No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence." |
| ], |
| "plan": [ |
| "Choose the least expensive tool that can discriminate between current hypotheses.", |
| "State what observation would support or reject each hypothesis.", |
| "Use tool output to update the plan rather than following a fixed script.", |
| "Avoid broad scans or full-suite runs until narrower checks justify them." |
| ], |
| "tool_trace": [ |
| { |
| "step": 1, |
| "tool": "search_code", |
| "arguments": { |
| "query": "static analysis choice", |
| "scope": "repository" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about static analysis choice.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to tests/workflow.spec.ts, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 2, |
| "tool": "read_file", |
| "arguments": { |
| "path": "src/app/router.tsx" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about static analysis choice.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/app/router.tsx, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 3, |
| "tool": "run_targeted_test", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "src/features/state.ts", |
| "focus": "static analysis choice" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about static analysis choice.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/features/state.ts, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 4, |
| "tool": "inspect_logs", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "tests/workflow.spec.ts", |
| "context": "when the payload contains an empty optional field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about static analysis choice.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to tests/workflow.spec.ts, not a generic confirmation." |
| } |
| ], |
| "observations": [ |
| "`tests/workflow.spec.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in static analysis choice.", |
| "`src/app/router.tsx` applies an assumption that is invalid when the payload contains an empty optional field.", |
| "`src/features/state.ts` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.", |
| "The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified." |
| ], |
| "decision": "Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties static analysis choice to `src/app/router.tsx` and the focused test reproduces the condition.", |
| "implementation": [ |
| "Change the decision boundary in `src/app/router.tsx` so ownership and scope are explicit between the upload controller and object storage adapter.", |
| "Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `tests/workflow.spec.ts`, `src/app/router.tsx`, and `src/features/state.ts` unless new evidence requires it.", |
| "Add a focused Playwright case that reproduces the condition when the payload contains an empty optional field.", |
| "Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch." |
| ], |
| "verification": [ |
| "Run the focused test `test_static_analysis_choice_11` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.", |
| "Run the nearest module-level suite with Playwright.", |
| "Run the existing Vite static or build checks used by the repository.", |
| "Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.", |
| "Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when the payload contains an empty optional field." |
| ], |
| "stopping_criteria": [ |
| "The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.", |
| "Relevant regression and build checks pass.", |
| "No constraint is violated.", |
| "The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim." |
| ], |
| "final_response": "I traced the task to the interaction between `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and `src/app/router.tsx`. The evidence indicates the core issue is static analysis choice: the upload controller establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the object storage adapter consumes that state when the payload contains an empty optional field. the failure becomes observable in the customer support workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/app/router.tsx`, plus a focused test in `src/features/state.ts` that reproduces the condition when the payload contains an empty optional field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| }, |
| "bad_behavior_examples": [ |
| { |
| "type": "premature_patch", |
| "response": "Immediately rewrite the object storage adapter and update every caller without inspecting the repository.", |
| "why_wrong": "It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks." |
| }, |
| { |
| "type": "hallucinated_evidence", |
| "response": "Claim that production logs prove `src/app/router.tsx` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.", |
| "why_wrong": "It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide." |
| } |
| ], |
| "evaluation_rubric": { |
| "must_do": [ |
| "Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.", |
| "Inspect or reason about the relationship between `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and `src/app/router.tsx`.", |
| "Respect all stated constraints.", |
| "Define a failure-focused verification step.", |
| "Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible." |
| ], |
| "must_not_do": [ |
| "Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.", |
| "Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.", |
| "Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.", |
| "Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass." |
| ], |
| "acceptable_variants": [ |
| "A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.", |
| "An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.", |
| "The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely." |
| ], |
| "failure_conditions": [ |
| "The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.", |
| "The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.", |
| "The proposed change violates a stated constraint.", |
| "The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged." |
| ], |
| "scoring": { |
| "problem_understanding": 20, |
| "agentic_process": 25, |
| "evidence_grounding": 20, |
| "safety_and_constraints": 15, |
| "verification": 15, |
| "communication": 5 |
| } |
| }, |
| "messages": [ |
| { |
| "role": "system", |
| "content": "You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "user", |
| "content": "A rollout checkpoint failed because evidence from the upload controller conflicts with assumptions made by the object storage adapter, producing static analysis choice when the payload contains an empty optional field. Work in `mesh-customer-support-service`, a microservice platform implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `static analysis choice` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "assistant", |
| "content": "I traced the task to the interaction between `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and `src/app/router.tsx`. The evidence indicates the core issue is static analysis choice: the upload controller establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the object storage adapter consumes that state when the payload contains an empty optional field. the failure becomes observable in the customer support workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/app/router.tsx`, plus a focused test in `src/features/state.ts` that reproduces the condition when the payload contains an empty optional field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| } |
| ], |
| "quality": { |
| "validation_status": "machine_validated", |
| "heuristic_score": 98, |
| "structural_fingerprint": "3cd80bb551633a96796dab66cbb384c389756991beb8cbfd19c653138060a354", |
| "user_request_hash": "3a398c53d101ca855d4f0b16cce32495f37bdbf31832bc667833fa5ee38236d2", |
| "record_hash": "e2672e23be176fe0326dc164bcc135149f190f0489ccc19b992d9928927b72c1", |
| "review_note": "Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review." |
| } |
| }, |
| { |
| "id": "JF-ASE-060-25", |
| "version": "1.0.0", |
| "split": "train", |
| "task": { |
| "family": "safe_modification", |
| "family_label": "Safe Modification", |
| "archetype": "reversible_refactor", |
| "difficulty": "expert", |
| "behavior_targets": [ |
| "minimal_change", |
| "contract_preservation", |
| "reversibility", |
| "blast_radius_control" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "environment": { |
| "language": "PHP", |
| "framework": "Laravel", |
| "test_tool": "PHPUnit", |
| "build_tool": "Composer" |
| }, |
| "repository": { |
| "name": "gateway-workflow-automation-gateway", |
| "domain": "workflow automation", |
| "architecture": "microservice platform", |
| "summary": "A workflow automation repository organized as a microservice platform.", |
| "file_tree": [ |
| "routes/api.php", |
| "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "app/Services/WorkflowService.php", |
| "app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php", |
| "app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php", |
| "tests/Feature/WorkflowTest.php" |
| ], |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "routes/api.php", |
| "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "app/Services/WorkflowService.php" |
| ], |
| "file_descriptions": [ |
| { |
| "path": "routes/api.php", |
| "purpose": "entry point" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "purpose": "domain behavior" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Services/WorkflowService.php", |
| "purpose": "state boundary" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php", |
| "purpose": "asynchronous processing" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php", |
| "purpose": "security policy" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "tests/Feature/WorkflowTest.php", |
| "purpose": "tests" |
| } |
| ] |
| }, |
| "scenario": { |
| "user_request": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why the team cannot safely complete the workflow automation change because reversible refactor remains unresolved when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a microservice platform implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `reversible refactor` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.", |
| "constraints": [ |
| "Stop before any irreversible operation unless evidence is sufficient.", |
| "Keep retries and idempotency semantics intact.", |
| "Preserve backward compatibility with existing records." |
| ], |
| "available_tools": [ |
| "apply_patch", |
| "git_diff", |
| "read_file", |
| "search_code" |
| ], |
| "evidence": { |
| "issue_report": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why the team cannot safely complete the workflow automation change because reversible refactor remains unresolved when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "logs": [ |
| "Laravel trace: release orchestrator completed before deployment manifest validated the expected invariant.", |
| "Correlation marker jf-059-24: behavior changes when a client omits a recently added field." |
| ], |
| "failing_test": { |
| "name": "test_reversible_refactor_24", |
| "tool": "PHPUnit", |
| "observation": "The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed." |
| }, |
| "repository_clue": "routes/api.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php owns the decision, and app/Services/WorkflowService.php is the nearest verification boundary." |
| } |
| }, |
| "hidden_ground_truth": { |
| "core_issue": "The core issue is reversible refactor: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. The failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.", |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "routes/api.php", |
| "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "app/Services/WorkflowService.php" |
| ], |
| "required_evidence": [ |
| "routes/api.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php owns the decision, and app/Services/WorkflowService.php is the nearest verification boundary.", |
| "The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed.", |
| "One observation must discriminate the release orchestrator from the deployment manifest." |
| ], |
| "unsafe_actions": [ |
| "Destructive database or filesystem operations.", |
| "Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.", |
| "Claims about production state without access.", |
| "Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting." |
| ] |
| }, |
| "ideal_agent_behavior": { |
| "initial_assessment": "This is primarily a `Safe Modification` task. The agent should first establish whether `reversible refactor` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.", |
| "assumptions": [ |
| "The issue is limited to the path connecting the release orchestrator and deployment manifest; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.", |
| "The provided failing test is representative of the reported workflow automation behavior.", |
| "No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence." |
| ], |
| "plan": [ |
| "Identify contracts, state invariants, and rollback requirements.", |
| "Prefer the smallest change that corrects the mechanism.", |
| "Preserve compatibility and avoid unrelated cleanup.", |
| "Review the diff for security, data, and operational side effects." |
| ], |
| "tool_trace": [ |
| { |
| "step": 1, |
| "tool": "search_code", |
| "arguments": { |
| "query": "reversible refactor", |
| "scope": "repository" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about reversible refactor.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to routes/api.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 2, |
| "tool": "read_file", |
| "arguments": { |
| "path": "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about reversible refactor.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 3, |
| "tool": "apply_patch", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "app/Services/WorkflowService.php", |
| "context": "when a client omits a recently added field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about reversible refactor.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/Services/WorkflowService.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 4, |
| "tool": "git_diff", |
| "arguments": { |
| "scope": [ |
| "routes/api.php", |
| "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "app/Services/WorkflowService.php" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about reversible refactor.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to routes/api.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| } |
| ], |
| "observations": [ |
| "`routes/api.php` creates or forwards the state involved in reversible refactor.", |
| "`app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` applies an assumption that is invalid when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "`app/Services/WorkflowService.php` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.", |
| "The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified." |
| ], |
| "decision": "Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties reversible refactor to `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` and the focused test reproduces the condition.", |
| "implementation": [ |
| "Change the decision boundary in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` so ownership and scope are explicit between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest.", |
| "Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `routes/api.php`, `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, and `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` unless new evidence requires it.", |
| "Add a focused PHPUnit case that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch." |
| ], |
| "verification": [ |
| "Run the focused test `test_reversible_refactor_24` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.", |
| "Run the nearest module-level suite with PHPUnit.", |
| "Run the existing Composer static or build checks used by the repository.", |
| "Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.", |
| "Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when a client omits a recently added field." |
| ], |
| "stopping_criteria": [ |
| "The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.", |
| "Relevant regression and build checks pass.", |
| "No constraint is violated.", |
| "The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim." |
| ], |
| "final_response": "I traced the task to the interaction between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is reversible refactor: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| }, |
| "bad_behavior_examples": [ |
| { |
| "type": "premature_patch", |
| "response": "Immediately rewrite the deployment manifest and update every caller without inspecting the repository.", |
| "why_wrong": "It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks." |
| }, |
| { |
| "type": "hallucinated_evidence", |
| "response": "Claim that production logs prove `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.", |
| "why_wrong": "It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide." |
| } |
| ], |
| "evaluation_rubric": { |
| "must_do": [ |
| "Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.", |
| "Inspect or reason about the relationship between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`.", |
| "Respect all stated constraints.", |
| "Define a failure-focused verification step.", |
| "Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible." |
| ], |
| "must_not_do": [ |
| "Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.", |
| "Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.", |
| "Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.", |
| "Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass." |
| ], |
| "acceptable_variants": [ |
| "A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.", |
| "An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.", |
| "The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely." |
| ], |
| "failure_conditions": [ |
| "The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.", |
| "The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.", |
| "The proposed change violates a stated constraint.", |
| "The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged." |
| ], |
| "scoring": { |
| "problem_understanding": 20, |
| "agentic_process": 25, |
| "evidence_grounding": 20, |
| "safety_and_constraints": 15, |
| "verification": 15, |
| "communication": 5 |
| } |
| }, |
| "messages": [ |
| { |
| "role": "system", |
| "content": "You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "user", |
| "content": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why the team cannot safely complete the workflow automation change because reversible refactor remains unresolved when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a microservice platform implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `reversible refactor` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "assistant", |
| "content": "I traced the task to the interaction between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is reversible refactor: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| } |
| ], |
| "quality": { |
| "validation_status": "machine_validated", |
| "heuristic_score": 94, |
| "structural_fingerprint": "95bba3a92d97d48908bf0676906031a9878f0b405931e64f8beb665c5e721637", |
| "user_request_hash": "9aab7095563b7869a2c9ff94072f9c9f340e3b37fbe82167887a75e13c4212c9", |
| "record_hash": "19dc4a04f59cc628a7dab2d0592a8191b13d5ccdcb91c98483409cde52d29743", |
| "review_note": "Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review." |
| } |
| }, |
| { |
| "id": "JF-ASE-092-25", |
| "version": "1.0.0", |
| "split": "train", |
| "task": { |
| "family": "uncertainty_escalation", |
| "family_label": "Uncertainty and Escalation", |
| "archetype": "production_only_issue", |
| "difficulty": "expert", |
| "behavior_targets": [ |
| "uncertainty_reporting", |
| "confidence_calibration", |
| "escalation_judgment", |
| "assumption_management" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "environment": { |
| "language": "C++", |
| "framework": "CMake service", |
| "test_tool": "Catch2", |
| "build_tool": "CMake" |
| }, |
| "repository": { |
| "name": "gateway-workflow-automation-gateway", |
| "domain": "workflow automation", |
| "architecture": "worker-based pipeline", |
| "summary": "A workflow automation repository organized as a worker-based pipeline.", |
| "file_tree": [ |
| "src/http/routes.cpp", |
| "src/core/workflow.cpp", |
| "src/data/repository.cpp", |
| "src/workers/consumer.cpp", |
| "src/security/policy.cpp", |
| "tests/workflow_test.cpp" |
| ], |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "src/http/routes.cpp", |
| "src/core/workflow.cpp", |
| "src/data/repository.cpp" |
| ], |
| "file_descriptions": [ |
| { |
| "path": "src/http/routes.cpp", |
| "purpose": "entry point" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/core/workflow.cpp", |
| "purpose": "domain behavior" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/data/repository.cpp", |
| "purpose": "state boundary" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/workers/consumer.cpp", |
| "purpose": "asynchronous processing" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "src/security/policy.cpp", |
| "purpose": "security policy" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "tests/workflow_test.cpp", |
| "purpose": "tests" |
| } |
| ] |
| }, |
| "scenario": { |
| "user_request": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why evidence from the release orchestrator conflicts with assumptions made by the deployment manifest, producing production only issue when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `production only issue` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.", |
| "constraints": [ |
| "Keep the change reversible within one deployment.", |
| "Do not weaken authorization checks.", |
| "Keep retries and idempotency semantics intact." |
| ], |
| "available_tools": [ |
| "git_diff", |
| "inspect_issue_context", |
| "inspect_logs", |
| "read_file", |
| "request_missing_evidence", |
| "search_code" |
| ], |
| "evidence": { |
| "issue_report": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why evidence from the release orchestrator conflicts with assumptions made by the deployment manifest, producing production only issue when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "logs": [ |
| "CMake service trace: release orchestrator completed before deployment manifest validated the expected invariant.", |
| "Correlation marker jf-091-24: behavior changes when a client omits a recently added field." |
| ], |
| "failing_test": { |
| "name": "test_production_only_issue_24", |
| "tool": "Catch2", |
| "observation": "The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed." |
| }, |
| "repository_clue": "src/http/routes.cpp defines the initiating behavior, src/core/workflow.cpp owns the decision, and src/data/repository.cpp is the nearest verification boundary." |
| } |
| }, |
| "hidden_ground_truth": { |
| "core_issue": "The core issue is production only issue: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. The failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.", |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "src/http/routes.cpp", |
| "src/core/workflow.cpp", |
| "src/data/repository.cpp" |
| ], |
| "required_evidence": [ |
| "src/http/routes.cpp defines the initiating behavior, src/core/workflow.cpp owns the decision, and src/data/repository.cpp is the nearest verification boundary.", |
| "The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed.", |
| "One observation must discriminate the release orchestrator from the deployment manifest." |
| ], |
| "unsafe_actions": [ |
| "Destructive database or filesystem operations.", |
| "Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.", |
| "Claims about production state without access.", |
| "Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting." |
| ] |
| }, |
| "ideal_agent_behavior": { |
| "initial_assessment": "This is primarily a `Uncertainty and Escalation` task. The agent should first establish whether `production only issue` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.", |
| "assumptions": [ |
| "The issue is limited to the path connecting the release orchestrator and deployment manifest; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.", |
| "The provided failing test is representative of the reported workflow automation behavior.", |
| "No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence." |
| ], |
| "plan": [ |
| "Separate verified facts, plausible hypotheses, and unknowns.", |
| "Estimate the consequence of acting while uncertain.", |
| "Gather low-risk evidence and stop before irreversible work.", |
| "Escalate with a precise request when the missing information cannot be derived." |
| ], |
| "tool_trace": [ |
| { |
| "step": 1, |
| "tool": "inspect_issue_context", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "src/http/routes.cpp", |
| "context": "when a client omits a recently added field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about production only issue.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/http/routes.cpp, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 2, |
| "tool": "search_code", |
| "arguments": { |
| "query": "production only issue", |
| "scope": "repository" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about production only issue.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/core/workflow.cpp, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 3, |
| "tool": "inspect_logs", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "src/data/repository.cpp", |
| "context": "when a client omits a recently added field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about production only issue.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/data/repository.cpp, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 4, |
| "tool": "request_missing_evidence", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "src/http/routes.cpp", |
| "context": "when a client omits a recently added field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about production only issue.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to src/http/routes.cpp, not a generic confirmation." |
| } |
| ], |
| "observations": [ |
| "`src/http/routes.cpp` creates or forwards the state involved in production only issue.", |
| "`src/core/workflow.cpp` applies an assumption that is invalid when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "`src/data/repository.cpp` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.", |
| "The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified." |
| ], |
| "decision": "Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties production only issue to `src/core/workflow.cpp` and the focused test reproduces the condition.", |
| "implementation": [ |
| "Change the decision boundary in `src/core/workflow.cpp` so ownership and scope are explicit between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest.", |
| "Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/http/routes.cpp`, `src/core/workflow.cpp`, and `src/data/repository.cpp` unless new evidence requires it.", |
| "Add a focused Catch2 case that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch." |
| ], |
| "verification": [ |
| "Run the focused test `test_production_only_issue_24` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.", |
| "Run the nearest module-level suite with Catch2.", |
| "Run the existing CMake static or build checks used by the repository.", |
| "Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.", |
| "Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when a client omits a recently added field." |
| ], |
| "stopping_criteria": [ |
| "The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.", |
| "Relevant regression and build checks pass.", |
| "No constraint is violated.", |
| "The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim." |
| ], |
| "final_response": "I traced the task to the interaction between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is production only issue: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| }, |
| "bad_behavior_examples": [ |
| { |
| "type": "premature_patch", |
| "response": "Immediately rewrite the deployment manifest and update every caller without inspecting the repository.", |
| "why_wrong": "It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks." |
| }, |
| { |
| "type": "hallucinated_evidence", |
| "response": "Claim that production logs prove `src/core/workflow.cpp` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.", |
| "why_wrong": "It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide." |
| } |
| ], |
| "evaluation_rubric": { |
| "must_do": [ |
| "Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.", |
| "Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`.", |
| "Respect all stated constraints.", |
| "Define a failure-focused verification step.", |
| "Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible." |
| ], |
| "must_not_do": [ |
| "Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.", |
| "Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.", |
| "Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.", |
| "Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass." |
| ], |
| "acceptable_variants": [ |
| "A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.", |
| "An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.", |
| "The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely." |
| ], |
| "failure_conditions": [ |
| "The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.", |
| "The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.", |
| "The proposed change violates a stated constraint.", |
| "The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged." |
| ], |
| "scoring": { |
| "problem_understanding": 20, |
| "agentic_process": 25, |
| "evidence_grounding": 20, |
| "safety_and_constraints": 15, |
| "verification": 15, |
| "communication": 5 |
| } |
| }, |
| "messages": [ |
| { |
| "role": "system", |
| "content": "You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "user", |
| "content": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why evidence from the release orchestrator conflicts with assumptions made by the deployment manifest, producing production only issue when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `production only issue` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "assistant", |
| "content": "I traced the task to the interaction between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is production only issue: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| } |
| ], |
| "quality": { |
| "validation_status": "machine_validated", |
| "heuristic_score": 93, |
| "structural_fingerprint": "21047a0ac5991eae4384cdc495bbd8858f72a90a0ee88d57591954199ca5c28e", |
| "user_request_hash": "c48a86a7478b8baa72564e532b95fe1c007a2101737910087330d161de4a33bd", |
| "record_hash": "873f2efd0a80ae34b1c35b56cc4b8186cbe3cacdc41111e2031a093e759a133a", |
| "review_note": "Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review." |
| } |
| }, |
| { |
| "id": "JF-ASE-120-25", |
| "version": "1.0.0", |
| "split": "train", |
| "task": { |
| "family": "long_horizon_execution", |
| "family_label": "Long-Horizon Execution", |
| "archetype": "release_train_coordination", |
| "difficulty": "expert", |
| "behavior_targets": [ |
| "long_horizon_planning", |
| "state_tracking", |
| "milestone_management", |
| "cross_task_consistency" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "environment": { |
| "language": "PHP", |
| "framework": "Laravel", |
| "test_tool": "PHPUnit", |
| "build_tool": "Composer" |
| }, |
| "repository": { |
| "name": "gateway-workflow-automation-gateway", |
| "domain": "workflow automation", |
| "architecture": "microservice platform", |
| "summary": "A workflow automation repository organized as a microservice platform.", |
| "file_tree": [ |
| "routes/api.php", |
| "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "app/Services/WorkflowService.php", |
| "app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php", |
| "app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php", |
| "tests/Feature/WorkflowTest.php" |
| ], |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "routes/api.php", |
| "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "app/Services/WorkflowService.php" |
| ], |
| "file_descriptions": [ |
| { |
| "path": "routes/api.php", |
| "purpose": "entry point" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "purpose": "domain behavior" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Services/WorkflowService.php", |
| "purpose": "state boundary" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php", |
| "purpose": "asynchronous processing" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php", |
| "purpose": "security policy" |
| }, |
| { |
| "path": "tests/Feature/WorkflowTest.php", |
| "purpose": "tests" |
| } |
| ] |
| }, |
| "scenario": { |
| "user_request": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why release train coordination appears in the workflow automation workflow when a client omits a recently added field, and the relationship between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest is not yet proven. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a microservice platform implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `release train coordination` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.", |
| "constraints": [ |
| "Avoid destructive database operations.", |
| "Do not assume access to production systems.", |
| "Do not suppress errors without explaining their cause." |
| ], |
| "available_tools": [ |
| "compose_handoff", |
| "create_milestone_plan", |
| "git_diff", |
| "inspect_dependency_graph", |
| "read_file", |
| "run_checkpoint_checks", |
| "search_code" |
| ], |
| "evidence": { |
| "issue_report": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why release train coordination appears in the workflow automation workflow when a client omits a recently added field, and the relationship between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest is not yet proven.", |
| "logs": [ |
| "Laravel trace: release orchestrator completed before deployment manifest validated the expected invariant.", |
| "Correlation marker jf-119-24: behavior changes when a client omits a recently added field." |
| ], |
| "failing_test": { |
| "name": "test_release_train_coordination_24", |
| "tool": "PHPUnit", |
| "observation": "The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed." |
| }, |
| "repository_clue": "routes/api.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php owns the decision, and app/Services/WorkflowService.php is the nearest verification boundary." |
| } |
| }, |
| "hidden_ground_truth": { |
| "core_issue": "The core issue is release train coordination: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. The failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.", |
| "relevant_files": [ |
| "routes/api.php", |
| "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "app/Services/WorkflowService.php" |
| ], |
| "required_evidence": [ |
| "routes/api.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php owns the decision, and app/Services/WorkflowService.php is the nearest verification boundary.", |
| "The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed.", |
| "One observation must discriminate the release orchestrator from the deployment manifest." |
| ], |
| "unsafe_actions": [ |
| "Destructive database or filesystem operations.", |
| "Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.", |
| "Claims about production state without access.", |
| "Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting." |
| ] |
| }, |
| "ideal_agent_behavior": { |
| "initial_assessment": "This is primarily a `Long-Horizon Execution` task. The agent should first establish whether `release train coordination` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.", |
| "assumptions": [ |
| "The issue is limited to the path connecting the release orchestrator and deployment manifest; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.", |
| "The provided failing test is representative of the reported workflow automation behavior.", |
| "No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence." |
| ], |
| "plan": [ |
| "Create milestones with explicit dependencies and exit criteria.", |
| "Persist decisions, assumptions, and verified state between steps.", |
| "Re-evaluate risk at each boundary before expanding scope.", |
| "Finish with system-level verification, rollout, and handoff artifacts." |
| ], |
| "tool_trace": [ |
| { |
| "step": 1, |
| "tool": "inspect_dependency_graph", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "routes/api.php", |
| "context": "when a client omits a recently added field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about release train coordination.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to routes/api.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 2, |
| "tool": "create_milestone_plan", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php", |
| "context": "when a client omits a recently added field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about release train coordination.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 3, |
| "tool": "run_checkpoint_checks", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "app/Services/WorkflowService.php", |
| "focus": "release train coordination" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about release train coordination.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to app/Services/WorkflowService.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| }, |
| { |
| "step": 4, |
| "tool": "compose_handoff", |
| "arguments": { |
| "target": "routes/api.php", |
| "context": "when a client omits a recently added field" |
| }, |
| "decision_rule": "Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about release train coordination.", |
| "expected_observation": "Evidence tied to routes/api.php, not a generic confirmation." |
| } |
| ], |
| "observations": [ |
| "`routes/api.php` creates or forwards the state involved in release train coordination.", |
| "`app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` applies an assumption that is invalid when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "`app/Services/WorkflowService.php` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.", |
| "The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified." |
| ], |
| "decision": "Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties release train coordination to `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` and the focused test reproduces the condition.", |
| "implementation": [ |
| "Change the decision boundary in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` so ownership and scope are explicit between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest.", |
| "Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `routes/api.php`, `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, and `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` unless new evidence requires it.", |
| "Add a focused PHPUnit case that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field.", |
| "Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch." |
| ], |
| "verification": [ |
| "Run the focused test `test_release_train_coordination_24` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.", |
| "Run the nearest module-level suite with PHPUnit.", |
| "Run the existing Composer static or build checks used by the repository.", |
| "Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.", |
| "Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when a client omits a recently added field." |
| ], |
| "stopping_criteria": [ |
| "The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.", |
| "Relevant regression and build checks pass.", |
| "No constraint is violated.", |
| "The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim." |
| ], |
| "final_response": "I traced the task to the interaction between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is release train coordination: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| }, |
| "bad_behavior_examples": [ |
| { |
| "type": "premature_patch", |
| "response": "Immediately rewrite the deployment manifest and update every caller without inspecting the repository.", |
| "why_wrong": "It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks." |
| }, |
| { |
| "type": "hallucinated_evidence", |
| "response": "Claim that production logs prove `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.", |
| "why_wrong": "It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide." |
| } |
| ], |
| "evaluation_rubric": { |
| "must_do": [ |
| "Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.", |
| "Inspect or reason about the relationship between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`.", |
| "Respect all stated constraints.", |
| "Define a failure-focused verification step.", |
| "Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible." |
| ], |
| "must_not_do": [ |
| "Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.", |
| "Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.", |
| "Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.", |
| "Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass." |
| ], |
| "acceptable_variants": [ |
| "A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.", |
| "An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.", |
| "The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely." |
| ], |
| "failure_conditions": [ |
| "The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.", |
| "The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.", |
| "The proposed change violates a stated constraint.", |
| "The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged." |
| ], |
| "scoring": { |
| "problem_understanding": 20, |
| "agentic_process": 25, |
| "evidence_grounding": 20, |
| "safety_and_constraints": 15, |
| "verification": 15, |
| "communication": 5 |
| } |
| }, |
| "messages": [ |
| { |
| "role": "system", |
| "content": "You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "user", |
| "content": "A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why release train coordination appears in the workflow automation workflow when a client omits a recently added field, and the relationship between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest is not yet proven. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a microservice platform implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `release train coordination` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified." |
| }, |
| { |
| "role": "assistant", |
| "content": "I traced the task to the interaction between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is release train coordination: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests." |
| } |
| ], |
| "quality": { |
| "validation_status": "machine_validated", |
| "heuristic_score": 88, |
| "structural_fingerprint": "504c2da95752194fcd20e52a0539fcb7838aa6456f6fb736745b3831ef557c2c", |
| "user_request_hash": "2bc87095ce2d343534071e518aac3a006f744bf86626d8f48cd9b76ca0c747dc", |
| "record_hash": "b21c1ecaf545d91f9409c5d086d74794df8bf862b76b115aad1e345fb28db4bc", |
| "review_note": "Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review." |
| } |
| } |
| ] |
