Spotify-tool-use

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_004
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: Spotify-tool-use
description: ''
task_type: val

trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "My Spotify email is les_ball@gmail.com and password is '(dgokRb'. I need help falling asleep late tonight. Please select the most suitable playlist from my currently created ones, and then add 3 appropriate songs to it. I only want to listen to songs I already like. Please remember: all the songs for my late-night sleep aid scenario must strictly be 'classical' music."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The selected playlist should explicitly be 'Starry Night Serenades'."
    - content: "The newly added songs must all come exclusively from the user's liked songs."
    - content: "Call the appropriate tools to complete the song addition and explicitly report the added results back to me."

objectives:
  tools_evaluation_path: "data/marketer/scripts/marketer_task_004.py"
  tools:
    - mcp_appworld_spotify__show_playlist:
        call: [playlist_id, song_id]
        result: []
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The newly added songs should be 'classical'."
    - criterion: "The newly added songs should be from the liked songs."

metadata:
  difficulty: easy


information_extraction

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_005
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: "information_extraction"
description: ''
task_type: long_term

trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: 'We are preparing a post-mortem on the viral "Apple × ISSEY MIYAKE iPhone Pocket Limited Accessory" co-branding campaign from November 2025. Please search the internet for core news about this event and summarize the key information (maximum 4 paragraphs). I need you to precisely extract the specific strategic data points and insights that defined this launch.'
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The response explicitly identifies the product design philosophy as 'A-POC' or 'a piece of cloth'."
    - content: "The response explicitly analyzes negative feedback or risk points."
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


Now please generate the deep-dive analysis report for the 'Apple × ISSEY MIYAKE iPhone Pocket...

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_006
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: ""
description: ''
task_type: long_term

trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "Now please generate the deep-dive analysis report for the 'Apple × ISSEY MIYAKE iPhone Pocket' campaign (maximum 5 paragraphs). You must explicitly structure the report applying these three specific frameworks: the Fogg Behavior Model (B=MAP), Moments of Truth (MOT) Analysis, and a Red Team / Blue Team Critique. Output strictly the report itself without any introductory or concluding conversational filler. Direct output instead of creating a document."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The report explicitly integrates the product design philosophy."
    - content: "The report explicitly analyzes negative feedback or risk points."
    - content: "The entire report remains strictly focused on the co-branding campaign, containing no irrelevant information or deviations from the core topic."
objectives:
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The report explicitly includes the content of Fogg Behavior Model (B=MAP), Moments of Truth (MOT) and 'Red Team / Blue Team Critique'."
    - criterion: "The Fogg Behavior Model analysis must explain how the product's functional design or physical attributes reduce consumer friction to address the 'Ability' element."
    - criterion: "The response explicitly identifies the core philosophy or official design concept specifically as 'A-POC' or 'a piece of cloth'."
    - criterion: "The report must strictly avoid presenting the Blue and Red teams as disconnected, independent lists of pros and cons."
    - criterion: "The report must explicitly demonstrate interconnected strategic thinking by connecting the mechanics of one framework directly into another, rather than treating the three frameworks as completely isolated, siloed analyses. The final synthesis explicitly unifies the frameworks to conclude with a definitive strategic question or paradox."
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


course_strategy

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_007
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: "course_strategy"
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: 'We just won a full-service launch pitch for a top-tier premium EdTech platform. Next month, we will assist them in launching a high-ticket new course targeted strictly at the North American market: "Enterprise AI Agent Commercial Operator Bootcamp". The client’s core marketing premise is: "You do not need to write a single line of code to survive the AI disruption; you just need to know how to deploy the right Agents to slash costs and drive business ROI." To prepare the content arsenal for the upcoming private community launch, please draft a high-level project content strategy. Outline the core strategic pillars we need to address to successfully position and sell this bootcamp. Please write this into a file named Enterprise_AI_Bootcamp_Strategy.md (maximum 3 paragraphs).'
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The written file explicitly includes a section or concept defining the 'Target Audience', 'Ideal Customer Profile', or 'Who this is for'."
    - content: "The written file explicitly includes a section or concept analyzing the 'Core Needs', 'Pain Points', 'Challenges', or 'Anxiety' of the prospects."
    - content: "The written file explicitly includes a section or concept outlining the 'Curriculum Direction', 'Course Structure', 'What will be taught', or 'Course Framework'."
objectives:
  files_read:
    - Enterprise_AI_Bootcamp_Strategy.md
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


rulebook

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_008
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: "rulebook"
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "Regarding the 'Enterprise AI Agent Commercial Operator Bootcamp' project we are launching for the North American market, we now need to establish operational rules for the community execution team. The main course launch cycle will run for exactly 5 days. These 5 days serve as a pre-purchase experience cycle where the Lead Instructor delivers daily high-value insights, TAs support the teaching content, and the Community Manager handles course promotion. Please draft a concise 'Internal Community Launch Rulebook' (maximum 6 guidelines in total). Define the specific behavioral guidelines for three distinct roles: the Lead Instructor, the TA, and the Community Manager. Please write this directly into a file named 'Community_Launch_Rulebook.md' in our workspace."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The Lead Instructor should teach only once per day to control frequency."
    - content: "The TA should assist with teaching, for example by introducing new applications, answering practical follow-up questions, or clarifying the Lead Instructor’s teaching."
    - content: "The Community Manager should handle the daily promotion of the main course purchase."
objectives:
  files_read:
    - Community_Launch_Rulebook.md

metadata:
  difficulty: medium


SOP

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_009
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: SOP
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "Regarding the 'Enterprise AI Agent Commercial Operator Bootcamp' project, please search our workspace to find the previously created project content strategy and the internal community launch rulebook to gather all necessary information. Based on the strategic pillars and execution norms found in these files, generate the complete 5-Day Private Community Launch Script SOP. This script should detail the Lead Instructor's daily insight topics, and the specific daily execution actions for the TA and the Community Manager. Please write this directly into a file named 5_Day_Launch_SOP.md (maximum 5 paragraphs) in our workspace."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The script explicitly includes concepts defining the 'Target Audience', 'Ideal Customer Profile', or 'Who this is for'."
    - content: "The script explicitly integrates the prospects' 'Core Needs', 'Pain Points', 'Challenges', or 'Anxiety'."
    - content: "The Lead Instructor is scheduled to teach/appear exactly once per day across the 5-day cycle."
    - content: "The script explicitly shows the TA prompting/answering member questions."
    - content: "The script assigns the Community Manager the task of daily promotion for the main course purchase."

objectives:
  files_read:
    - 5_Day_Launch_SOP.md
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The SOP addresses commercial or career anxieties related to AI, such as the fear of being replaced, the pressure to improve ROI, or business bottlenecks."
    - criterion: "Role Firewall (Church and State): The SOP strictly enforces that the Lead Instructor's content remains 100% educational and value-driven across all 5 days. It explicitly forbids the Instructor from using promotional language, pitching, or mentioning enrollment/pricing, mandating that all sales and conversion activities be exclusively delegated to the Community Manager."
    - criterion: "Actionable TA Execution: The SOP assigns the TA concrete, quoted examples of engagement prompts, polls, or mini-challenges for the community (e.g., 'What is one task...', 'How many AI tools...'), strictly avoiding vague and un-executable directives like 'nurture participants' or 'provide examples' without demonstrating what those examples are."
    - criterion: "Progressive Sales Arc: The Community Manager's daily promotional strategy explicitly shifts in psychological tone and tactical purpose each day (e.g., moving precisely from an 'Informational' welcome, to 'Aspirational' social proof, to 'Consultative' objection handling/FAQs, and finally a 'Direct Conversion' CTA), rather than repeatedly issuing generic instructions to 'schedule promotional content'."
    - criterion: "Strict Paragraph Constraint: The response strictly adheres to the 'maximum 5 paragraphs' constraint by packing the daily instructions (Instructor, TA, and CM actions) into single, highly dense continuous text blocks (one paragraph per day), strictly avoiding the use of sub-bullets, excessive line breaks, or sub-headings within a single day's plan."
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


Draft a Core Product Asset Brief

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_010
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: Draft a Core Product Asset Brief
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "My Spotify account is les_ball@gmail.com with the password: (dgokRb , and my Gmail uses the password: %@g}L&b . Our company's monthly music event has just started, and each person is allowed to recommend exactly one album. As you know, I've been suffering from terrible insomnia lately. Can you recommend the most suitable, highest-quality album on Spotify to help me sleep based on my established preferences? Once you decide, please draft an email to Denise Maldonado to officially submit my recommendations."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The Agent must automatically restrict the album recommendation to the 'classical' genre."
    - content: "The 'high-quality' constraint means the Agent must select or mention that the chosen album has high ratings/scores on Spotify."
    - content: "The drafted email should clearly state the full and sufficient reasons for the recommendation (at least two reasons)."
    - content: "Call the appropriate tools to send the email and explicitly report the full content of the sent email to me."
objectives:
  tools_evaluation_path: "data/marketer/scripts/marketer_task_010.py"
  tools:
    - gmail__send_email:
        call: [name]
        result: []
    - gmail__send_email_from_draft:
        call: [name]
        result: []
    - gmail__search_users:
        call: [query]
        result: []
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The recommended album should be 'Echoes of Eternity'."
    - criterion: "The email explicitly mentions that the recommended items are high-quality or high rate."
    - criterion: "The email explicitly mentions that the recommended items are helpful for sleep or relaxation."
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


Draft a Core Product Asset Brief

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_011
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: Draft a Core Product Asset Brief
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: 'We are analyzing successful premium DTC brands to extract a repeatable advertorial methodology. Please search the internet for the marketing strategy behind the "Eight Sleep Pod", and summarize the core reasons for its product marketing success. (maximum 4 paragraphs)'

  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The response explicitly analyzes the target audience's specific pain points (e.g., poor sleep quality, sleeping hot, or partner temperature differences)."
    - content: "The response explicitly identifies the product's technological advantages (e.g., active cooling, biometric tracking, or AI temperature adjustments)."
    - content: "The response explicitly identifies the conversion bait or purchase incentives (e.g., 30-night risk-free trial, financing options, or guarantees)."

metadata:
  difficulty: medium


Generate A/B Testing Headlines

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_012
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: "Generate A/B Testing Headlines"
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "We are planning an advertorial for the '$599 Spine Steward AI Adaptive Ergonomic Chair' targeting North American Silicon Valley programmers. Please read the 'Spine_Steward.md' file and extract its specific facts. Then, immediately generate 12 English A/B testing headlines targeted at native feed pushes. You must explicitly use these extracted specific facts to construct the headlines. Group them explicitly under these 4 psychological triggers: Counter-Intuitive Curiosity, Authority Endorsement, Pain Point Amplification, and Instant Saving Incentive (exactly 3 headlines per category). Every single headline must be strictly between 6 and 12 words. Output strictly the 12 headlines grouped by category without any introductory or concluding conversational filler."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "One of the 3 headlines in the [Authority Endorsement] category must mandatorily include the core technological advantages of the product."
    - content: "One of the 3 headlines in the [Pain Point Amplification] category must mandatorily include the extreme pain points of the product."
    - content: "One of the 3 headlines in the [Instant Saving Incentive] category must mandatorily display the specific conversion bait of the product."

objectives:
  checklist:
    - criterion: "One of the 3 headlines in the [Counter-Intuitive Curiosity] category must spark curiosity using technical analogies familiar to programmers or career-related contrasts."
    - criterion: "One of the 3 headlines in the [Authority Endorsement] category explicitly includes either the 'Medical-grade' or 'AI Dynamic' vocabulary."
    - criterion: "One of the 3 headlines in the [Pain Point Amplification] category explicitly features either the 'Chronic Lower Back Pain' or 'Hidden Scoliosis' keywords."
    - criterion: "All of the 3 headlines in the [Instant Saving Incentive] category explicitly feature the '$50' or 'Early Bird' keywords."

metadata:
  difficulty: medium


Extract Market Signals from the Web

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_013
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: "Extract Market Signals from the Web"
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "I just treated myself to the new Dyson Airstrait to speed up my morning routine as a busy media manager, and I've also just moved my home media studio to '7914 Carla Crossing Suite 507'. Before writing the script, please search for the Dyson's core technology and common user complaints. Then, write a 60-second TikTok vlog script sharing my honest experience based on TikTok formatting preferences."
  hidden_intent:
  - content: "The script begins with a strong hook that contextualizes the user's high-stress media manager persona."
  - content: "The research portion must extract deep, specific technical data of the product rather than superficial marketing claims."
  - content: "The script must logically connect the product's core advantage to the user's specific professional persona by contrasting it with a traditional multi-step hair routine."
  - content: "The script must explicitly integrate nuanced, specific usage complaints beyond just price and weight, such as performance on hair roots or environmental factors."
objectives:
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The script begins with a strong hook or counter-intuitive statement."
    - criterion: "The research section explicitly includes specific technical specifications or quantitative data, such as motor RPM, air volume, or the use of glass bead thermistors."
    - criterion: "The script explicitly highlights the time-saving benefit by contrasting the device with a traditional two-step routine."
    - criterion: "The script explicitly incorporates a nuanced styling limitation found in the research, such as difficulty reaching the roots or frizz caused by humidity."
    - criterion: "The script explicitly mentions a physical or experiential drawback, such as the device being loud near the ears or bulkier than expected."

metadata:
  difficulty: easy


Shopping

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_014
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: "Shopping"
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "My password is exactly 7 characters long and has no trailing space: VxoU[nz . That expensive office chair I bought a while back is already showing severe wear and tear. Can you check the reviews for that specific chair in my order history and see if anyone else has complained about it wearing out quickly? Also, my current audio setup isn't great. I think I need a high-quality portable bluetooth speaker for my sleep routine. Please find a suitable one in the store, add it to my cart along with whatever is already in there, and complete the purchase. Please ship this order to my new home media studio using my primary email account."
  hidden_intent:
      - content: "The 'expensive office chair' is the 'Steelcase Amia Ergonomic Office Chair'."
      - content: "I expect the new speaker to be added to my cart without removing my existing items."
      - content: "My intended shipping address for this order is specifically '7914 Carla Crossing Suite 507'."
      - content: "I need you to report the price of the speaker."
      - content: "The speaker to purchase is 'JBL Charge 4 Portable Bluetooth Speaker'."
      - content: "I expect you to complete the actual purchase and explicitly report the final result back to me."
objectives:
  tools_evaluation_path: "data/marketer/scripts/marketer_task_014.py"
  tools:
    - amazon__show_product_reviews:
        call: [product_id]
        result: []
    - amazon__show_product:
        call: [product_id]
        result: []
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The Agent successfully logs into Amazon using the implicitly recalled email 'les_ball@gmail.com'."
    - criterion: "The 'expensive office chair' is the 'Steelcase Amia Ergonomic Office Chair'."
    - criterion: "The speaker to purchase is 'JBL Charge 4 Portable Bluetooth Speaker'."
    - criterion: "The final checkout includes BOTH the newly added JBL speaker AND the existing 'OXO Good Grips Convertible Foldaway Dish Rack'."
    - criterion: "The order was placed using the specific '7914 Carla Crossing Suite 507' shipping address."

metadata:
  difficulty: easy


brief

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_015
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: brief
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "We are conducting background research on two brands: the hardcore e-sports brand 'ROG (Republic of Gamers)' and the centuries-old traditional medicine brand 'Beijing Tong Ren Tang (BTRT)'. Please research them independently via the internet. Please write this directly into a file named Brand_Research.md (maximum 4 paragraphs) in our workspace."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The official brand slogan for ROG is explicitly identified as 'For Those Who Dare'."
    - content: "The research delves into specific ROG product lines, mentioning core models like 'Zephyrus' or 'Strix', or its iconic 'Fearless Eye' logo."
    - content: "The research captures the core meaning of BTRT's traditional quality principle, specifically the commitment to never compromise on labor/effort and never compromise on materials/cost."
objectives:
  files_read:
    - Brand_Research.md

metadata:
  difficulty: medium


ROG × medicine

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_016
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: "ROG × medicine"
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "Regarding the 'ROG x Beijing Tong Ren Tang (BTRT)' crossover campaign, please read the 'Meeting_Minutes_0409.md' file from our workspace. This file contains the raw transcript of our initial client alignment meeting. Extract the core constraints and client demands. Draft a concise rulebook based strictly on these extracted points, filtering out all the conversational noise. Please write this directly into a file named 'Kickoff_Rulebook.md' in the workspace."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The rulebook explicitly locks in the Slogan Rule based on Marcus's requirement: English only, exactly 6 words or fewer."
    - content: "The rulebook explicitly locks in the Product Form constraints agreed upon by both parties: no traditional PC chassis and no standard herbal medicine pills."
    - content: "The rulebook explicitly locks in the Visual Rule proposed by Marcus: Cyberpunk Neon Green as the primary tone."
    - content: "The rulebook explicitly adopts Dr. Chen's veto regarding the launch strategy, establishing a Mechanism Rule that prohibits hunger marketing and ensures stable supply."
objectives:
  files_read:
    - Meeting_Minutes_0409.md
    - Kickoff_Rulebook.md

metadata:
  difficulty: medium


(Co-branding Proposal Generation)

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_017
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title:  (Co-branding Proposal Generation)
description: ''
task_type: test
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "Regarding the 'ROG x BTRT' crossover campaign, please search our workspace to locate the documents containing our recent independent brand research and the finalized kickoff rules. Based strictly on the facts and established rules found in these specific files, generate the complete 'ROG x Tong Ren Tang Crossover Campaign Outline' (maximum 4 paragraphs). The outline must be highly concrete and actionable, proposing a specific physical product and a definitive slogan, rather than merely repeating the rules. Structure the outline into exactly four core modules: 'Co-branded Product', 'Target Audience Persona', 'Slogan', and 'Promotion Strategy'. Please write this directly into a file named 'Campaign_Outline.md' in our workspace without any conversational filler."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The outline contains a specific introduction and description of the 'Co-branded Product'."
    - content: "The outline explicitly explains the specific reasoning behind the 'Co-branded Product' choice."
    - content: "The outline contains a specific introduction of the 'Target Audience Persona'."
    - content: "The outline introduces a definitive slogan specifically within the dedicated 'Slogan' module."
    - content: "The outline incorporates the specific visual color constraint specifically within the 'Promotion Strategy' module."
    - content: "The outline incorporates the specific product supply and sales mechanism constraints specifically within the 'Promotion Strategy' module."
objectives:
  files_read:
    - Campaign_Outline.md
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The outline explicitly references the established rules or brand doctrines or traditional quality motto."
    - criterion: "The 'Co-branded Product' section explicitly identifies a specific flagship product/series AND clearly explains how the new co-branded design inherits and utilizes its specific core advantages or functional strengths."
    - criterion: "The 'Slogan' section provides a definitive, actionable slogan that is exactly 6 words or fewer."
    - criterion: "The 'Promotion Strategy' explicitly outlines multiple distinct, named marketing activation tactics with specific execution details, strictly avoiding generic, lazy strategies like simply stating 'use influencers' or 'release a trailer'."
    - criterion: "The outline explicitly mandates the use of 'Cyberpunk Neon Green', and explicitly states that hunger marketing is prohibited and guarantees stable or adequate product supply."
    - criterion: "The response strictly respects the 'maximum 4 paragraphs' constraint by formatting the entire outline as exactly four continuous text blocks (one for each module)."
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


crisis pr

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_018
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: crisis pr
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: 'As an external crisis PR agency, we are conducting a fictional PR simulation drill. The scenario: The smart pet hardware brand "MeowConnect" suffered a massive crisis during the May Day holiday when their smart pet feeders experienced a network outage, leaving pets unfed. Before drafting any statements, please directly ask me (the client) the essential questions to gather all the information you need. Please limit your questions to a maximum of 6.'

  hidden_intent:
    - content: "When the incident occurred: The downtime lasted from 12:00 on May 1, 2025 to 12:00 on May 3, 2025."
    - content: "What exactly happened/How many pets were affected: The specific scope of the outage impacted '150,000 active nodes'."
    - content: "What caused the incident: The official engineering explanation is 'unforeseen extreme fluctuations in cloud services'."
    - content: "What has MeowConnect already done/compensated: The company is establishing a '$1 Million Fur Baby Medical Reimbursement Fund'."
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


crisis pr

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_019
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: crisis pr
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: '|
    [INCOMING SYSTEM WEBHOOK: CRISIS_MANAGEMENT_PLATFORM]
    {
      "event_id": "EVT-2026-05-04-001",
      "trigger_source": "client_approval_matrix",
      "client": "MeowConnect",
      "status": "PHASE_1_ALIGNMENT_COMPLETE",
      "next_action_required": "GENERATE_AND_PUBLISH_FINAL_APOLOGY_LETTER",
      "target_platform": "X_Twitter",
      "context_dependency": "PRIOR_CLIENT_ALIGNMENT_SESSION",
      "output_directive": "STDOUT_RAW_TEXT_ONLY"
    }'

  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The letter explicitly integrates the exact incident scale data: the specific duration of downtime and the specific number of affected active nodes."
    - content: "The letter explicitly states the official engineering explanation."
    - content: "The letter explicitly announces the compensation."

objectives:
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The letter explicitly attributes the outage to 'unforeseen extreme fluctuations' in cloud infrastructure or cloud services, accurately recalling the engineering cause."
    - criterion: "The letter accurately conveys the temporal scope of the outage by explicitly mentioning the dates 'May 1 to May 3' AND/OR specifying a '48-hour' duration."
    - criterion: "The letter explicitly integrates the exact numerical scale of '150,000' affected entities (accepting natural PR terminology such as '150,000 devices', 'households', 'feeders', or 'nodes')."
    - criterion: "The letter explicitly announces the '$1 Million Fur Baby Medical Reimbursement Fund'."
    - criterion: "The letter strictly avoids fabricating highly specific, unapproved operational commitments or contact methods that were not in the context (e.g., explicitly penalized for inventing phone numbers or specific firmware update timelines). General statements of continuous improvement are acceptable."
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


crisis pr

schema_version: v2
task_id: marketer_task_020
user_id: marketer
environment_id: env_marketer
title: crisis pr
description: ''
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user

intent:
  initial_input: "After a crazy week of handling PR crises and the AI course launch, my lower back is aching from sitting too much, and my sleep has been terrible. I need a strict 3-hour Sunday evening wind-down routine to recover my nervous system. Please break this 3-hour period into 6 or more consecutive time blocks (each 30 mins or shorter). The routine must include: a reading session, a physical recovery session, a low-stakes journaling session, hair prep for tomorrow morning using the new tool I just wrote a vlog about, and a final music session. For the music, I want to use the portable speaker I just bought to play the playlist we updated late that night. My Todoist password is VK^N(lj . Please create a task in Todoist using my primary email for this entire routine, with these blocks as sub-tasks."
  hidden_intent:
    - content: "The physical recovery session must specifically target lower back pain relief."
    - content: "The reading materials must explicitly exclude tactical, work-related, or self-improvement books to ensure genuine mental recovery from insomnia."
    - content: "The journaling session must include at least 3 specific, recovery-oriented writing prompts without focusing on productivity."
    - content: "Call the appropriate tools to create the Todoist main task and sub-tasks and explicitly report the final schedule and Todoist task structure to me."
objectives:
  tools_evaluation_path: "data/marketer/scripts/marketer_task_020.py"
  tools:
    - todoist__create_task:
        call: [name]
        result: []
    - todoist__create_sub_task:
        call: [title]
        result: []
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The schedule displayed in the response is exactly 3 hours long, and exactly divided into at least 6 consecutive time blocks of 30 minutes or shorter"
    - criterion: "Within the 'Physical Recovery Session' sub-task, the Agent explicitly targets lower back pain with mentions of lower back stretches, spine relief, or posture correction."
    - criterion: "Within the 'Journaling Session' sub-task, the Agent explicitly provides at least 3 distinct recovery-oriented writing prompts."
    - criterion: "The 'Hair Prep' sub-task must explicitly utilize the 'Dyson Airstrait'."
    - criterion: "The 'Music Session' sub-task explicitly use the 'JBL Charge 4' speaker."
    - criterion: "The 'Music Session' sub-task explicitly use the playlist 'Starry Night Serenades'."
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_001
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Sandbox Gmail Brief Extraction, Message Send, and Outbox Confirmation
description: "Inside the AppWorld sandbox only, the user wants to send a simulated Gmail message to the instrument manager instead of stopping at a draft. The task tests whether the agent reads a short local booking brief, extracts the recipient, subject, time-window, and preparation details, then follows an AppWorld single-app closed loop: log into sandbox Gmail, send the message, and confirm the result through the outbox or thread view."
task_type: short_term_independent
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    This is an AppWorld sandbox task; the account identifiers below are synthetic test credentials, not real external accounts. First read `instrument_booking_brief.md` in the current task directory and use it to compose the message. In the sandbox Gmail app, send the simulated message to the instrument manager rather than stopping at a draft. After sending it, check the outbox or the corresponding thread once more to confirm the sandbox send. Login with username "la-mcco@gmail.com" and sandbox credential "qRFsgRQ". In your final response, use exactly these blocks in this order: `Brief Details`, `Sent Message`, `Verification`.

  hidden_intent:
    - content: Use the sandbox Gmail login flow first and reuse the same session token in the later steps.
    - content: Use Gmail's direct `send_email` flow to send a new email instead of relying only on draft creation.
    - content: Extract the recipient, subject, time-window, instrument-duration, and sample-preparation details from `instrument_booking_brief.md`.
    - content: The email body must include both the request to confirm instrument availability and the Tuesday/Thursday afternoon availability sentence from the local brief.
    - content: Include the 4-hour LC-MS slot request and the note that sample prep can be ready 30 minutes before the run.
    - content: End with at least one outbox-thread or matching-thread check so the workflow is closed.
    - content: In the final response, use the required blocks and restate the brief-derived message details, send result, and verification result.

objectives:
  tools:
    - mcp_appworld_gmail__login:
        call: [username, password]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_gmail__send_email:
        call: [email_addresses, subject, body, access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_gmail__show_outbox_threads:
        call: [access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_gmail__show_thread:
        call: [email_thread_id, access_token]
        result: [response]

  checklist:
    - criterion: "The final response must contain exactly these three top-level blocks in this order: `Brief Details`, `Sent Message`, and `Verification`."
    - criterion: "The `Brief Details` block must include recipient `stmcco@gmail.com`, subject `Instrument booking follow-up`, both local-brief time windows `Tuesday 2-5 pm` and `Thursday 1-4 pm`, the `4-hour LC-MS` slot request, and the note that sample prep can be ready `30 minutes` before the run."
    - criterion: "The `Sent Message` block must state that the sandbox Gmail message was sent to `stmcco@gmail.com` with subject `Instrument booking follow-up`."
    - criterion: "The `Verification` block must say that a post-send confirmation check was completed through the outbox or matching thread."

  tools_evaluation_path: data/pharmacist/scripts/pharmacist_task_001_gmail.py
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_002
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Literature Search and Review Outline
description: The user is preparing a pharmacy-related presentation and needs a structured overview of representative literature and the current research landscape of triple-negative breast cancer. The task directory now also contains a flawed draft outline that should be revised after literature search, so the task is not just to say something sensible but to correct a weak structure, reprioritize the field, and leave behind reusable artifacts.
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `tnbc_review_outline.md` in the current task directory; if it is missing, say so first. Then search the literature and revise the outline instead of starting from zero. Please update `tnbc_review_outline.md`, create `priority_paper_table.csv`, and in your final reply use exactly these blocks in this order: `Revised Storylines`, `Most Presentable Angle`, `Deprioritized Or Split-Off Area`, `Presentation Sentence`.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Treat `tnbc_review_outline.md` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than as a trusted starting point.
  - content: If the field is too broad, compress it into 3-4 main storylines worth presenting instead of spreading attention evenly across many themes.
  - content: Re-rank the field so that the strongest or most presentable angles come first, and push weaker or less mature angles down instead of keeping everything at equal weight.
  - content: If one storyline captures a sharper design rule or mechanism than a broad category label, elevate that sharper storyline instead of hiding it inside a generic bucket.
  - content: Preserve traceable source information such as title, journal, year, DOI, PMID, or source link in the revised artifacts.
  - content: Do not stop at saying that progress exists; also explain what has truly been achieved and what still has not been solved.
  - content: Create a paper-priority table that makes it easier to drill down into representative papers later.
  - content: Also point out 1-2 open questions, controversies, or follow-up directions that are still worth tracking.
  - content: End with one sentence that could be pasted directly into a short presentation.
  - content: Make at least one deprioritized or split-off area explicit rather than letting everything remain "important."

metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_003
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Sandbox Amazon Preference-Note Product Search, Wish-List Add, and Result Verification
description: "Inside the AppWorld sandbox only, the user wants to save a daily-use water bottle that works for both commuting and lab use. The task tests whether the agent reads a local preference note, uses those constraints to choose one product, adds it to the sandbox wish list, and reads the wish list afterward to confirm the result."
task_type: short_term_independent
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    This is an AppWorld sandbox task; the account identifiers below are synthetic test credentials, not real external accounts. First read `water_bottle_selection_notes.md` in the current task directory. In the sandbox Amazon app, save one water bottle that fits those notes and would work for both daily commuting and lab use. Please search the products first, choose one item that best matches the note, add it to my wish list, and then check the wish list again to confirm that it is there. Login with username "la-mcco@gmail.com" and sandbox credential "v[=NdO3". In your final response, use exactly these blocks in this order: `Selection Rationale`, `Wish List Result`, `Verification`.
  hidden_intent:
    - content: Log into sandbox Amazon first and reuse the same session token.
    - content: Perform a product search before doing any write action.
    - content: Use `water_bottle_selection_notes.md` to choose a normal personal-size bottle rather than choosing only by generic popularity.
    - content: Prefer leakproof, commute-friendly, lab-bench-appropriate, non-glass options in the 18-24 oz or 500-750 mL range.
    - content: Avoid oversized gallon jugs, fragile glass bottles, and awkward straw-only bottles.
    - content: Add the product to the wish list rather than the cart, and do not place an order.
    - content: Check the wish list once more at the end to confirm that the target product is present.
    - content: In the final response, use the required blocks and explain the product choice, wish-list write, and wish-list verification.
objectives:
  tools:
    - mcp_appworld_amazon__login:
        call: [username, password]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_amazon__search_products:
        call: []
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_amazon__add_product_to_wish_list:
        call: [product_id, access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_amazon__show_wish_list:
        call: [access_token]
        result: [response]
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The final response must contain exactly these three top-level blocks in this order: `Selection Rationale`, `Wish List Result`, and `Verification`."
    - criterion: "The `Selection Rationale` block must identify one water-bottle-like product and explain why it fits at least three local preference-note constraints, chosen from normal personal-size capacity, leakproof design, commute suitability, lab-bench suitability, non-glass material, avoiding giant jugs, and avoiding awkward straw-only designs."
    - criterion: "The `Wish List Result` block must clearly state that exactly one selected water bottle product was added to the sandbox Amazon wish list, not the cart."
    - criterion: "The `Verification` block must clearly state that the wish list was checked afterward and the product was confirmed present."
  tools_evaluation_path: data/pharmacist/scripts/pharmacist_task_003_amazon.py
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_004
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Pharmacy Paper Figure Interpretation and Reading-Order Guidance
description: "The user often struggles to understand paper figures. The task directory now provides the original paper PDF, a paired figure, and a flawed interpretation draft. The task is intentionally harder: the agent must recover what the figure is trying to prove from the figure itself plus the surrounding paper context, correct the draft, and leave behind a cleaner reusable note."
task_type: short_term_contextual
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `targeted_liposomal_tnbc_paper.pdf`, `figure_5_in_vivo_efficacy.png`, and `figure_interpretation_note.md` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then revise the current figure note instead of starting from zero. Please update `figure_interpretation_note.md`, and in your final reply use exactly these blocks in this order: `What The Figure Is Proving`, `Most Decisive Panel`, `What The Visual Alone Shows`, `What Requires Paper Context`, `Retell Sentence`.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Treat `figure_interpretation_note.md` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than a trusted interpretation.
  - content: Start with one sentence telling me what the figure is actually trying to prove.
  - content: Recover the figure context from the local paper itself rather than relying on the draft, and make clear what information comes from the visual panel versus from the surrounding article context.
  - content: If there are many panels, identify the most important comparison or the most worth-reading panel first instead of scanning everything evenly.
  - content: Distinguish the panel that carries the main conclusion from panels that mainly support mechanism, corroboration, or presentation detail.
  - content: If the panel meaning, groups, controls, or endpoints are still unclear after reading the local PDF and figure, say exactly which missing context matters most instead of guessing.
  - content: Also give a reusable reading order for similar figures and correct at least one common misreading preserved in the draft.
  - content: End with one sentence that can be directly retold to someone else.
  - content: If the draft pushes a left-to-right reading order or treats every panel as equally important, override that and promote the biologically decisive panel first.

metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_005
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: "Paper Dissection: Peptide-Density Targeting, Validation Logic, and Metastasis-Suppression Evidence"
description: The user wants to break down a specific paper on targeting and metastasis suppression in triple-negative breast cancer. The task directory keeps the original paper PDF, two figure extracts, and an intentionally flawed dissection draft. The task is no longer just to answer well; it is to recover the real point from the paper materials, correct the flawed draft, and expose the corrected evidence hierarchy directly in the final reply.
task_type: short_term_contextual
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `s41467-018-05035-5.pdf`, `figure_1_study_design.svg`, `figure_3_in_vivo_results.svg`, and `paper_dissection.md` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then revise the current dissection note instead of starting from zero. Please update `paper_dissection.md`, keep any useful structure if possible, and in your final reply use exactly these section headers in this order: `Core Question`, `Primary Evidence`, `Supporting Evidence`, `Rejected Interpretation`, `First Figure To Inspect`, `Boundary And Follow-up`, `One-Line Takeaway`. In every section except `One-Line Takeaway`, include a source anchor chosen only from `[PDF]`, `[Fig1]`, `[Fig3]`, `[PDF+Fig1]`, `[PDF+Fig3]`, `[Fig1+Fig3]`, or `[PDF+Fig1+Fig3]`. Treat this as the paper-level continuation of the earlier TNBC-outline and figure-reading tasks: do not turn it into a broad TNBC nanomedicine overview, and do not default to a left-to-right or Figure-1-first explanation.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Use the original paper PDF and the local figure extracts first, and treat `paper_dissection.md` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than as a trusted summary.
  - content: Inherit the earlier literature-outline preference for compressing a broad field into one sharper storyline, and position this paper as a density-optimization / surface-architecture storyline rather than as a generic targeted-liposome overview.
  - content: Start very early with the paper's actual research question or main point instead of a long background preamble.
  - content: Prioritize the in vivo metastasis-suppression evidence as the primary evidence line if it is the strongest support for the paper's claim.
  - content: Distinguish the primary evidence from supporting evidence instead of presenting every result as equally important.
  - content: Correct any draft tendency to treat uptake or higher-density signal as the main proof of the paper.
  - content: Recover at least one major inference by combining the original paper text with the local figure extracts, not by reading either source in isolation.
  - content: Inherit the earlier figure-reading preference for identifying the decisive panel before scanning introductory or left-to-right panels, and explicitly separate what Figure 3 can show visually from what still needs PDF context.
  - content: Tell me which single figure, comparison, or entry point I should look at first if I want to explain the paper to someone else.
  - content: Explicitly state what the paper supports, what remains uncertain, and what kind of follow-up experiment would tighten that gap.
  - content: Keep useful note structure if possible, but make the final reply follow the exact output schema so the corrected hierarchy is visible without opening the file.
  - content: If the draft overweights Figure 1 or uptake, proactively demote that line before the reader has a chance to confuse concept validation with decisive biological proof.
  - content: Volunteer one interpretation trap a reader could fall into when moving from targeting or uptake data to the metastasis claim, and correct it rather than waiting for a follow-up question.
  - content: Use the `First Figure To Inspect` section to steer attention toward the biologically decisive comparison rather than the easiest or most introductory-looking figure.

objectives:

  checklist:
  - criterion: "The final reply must follow the exact output schema: exactly seven top-level sections in this order, `Core Question`, `Primary Evidence`, `Supporting Evidence`, `Rejected Interpretation`, `First Figure To Inspect`, `Boundary And Follow-up`, and `One-Line Takeaway`; every section except `One-Line Takeaway` must contain at least one visible source anchor chosen only from `[PDF]`, `[Fig1]`, `[Fig3]`, `[PDF+Fig1]`, `[PDF+Fig3]`, `[Fig1+Fig3]`, or `[PDF+Fig1+Fig3]`."
  - criterion: "The `Core Question` section must explicitly frame the paper as a `DV1` or peptide-surface-density optimization / density-dependent targeting-signaling question tied to migration or metastasis outcome, and it must explicitly avoid positioning the paper as just another broad `TNBC targeted-liposome` overview or a generic `CXCR4 targeting` / uptake paper."
  - criterion: "The `Primary Evidence` section must explicitly treat the decisive evidence as an in vivo or metastasis-grounded result, and it must name at least one concrete comparison chosen from `24k versus 39k`, `24k versus 74k`, `24k versus L-DBCO`, or the `27-day primary-tumor metastatic model`; it must also explicitly state that this evidence is more decisive than uptake or binding evidence."
  - criterion: "The `Supporting Evidence` section must name one distinct secondary line chosen from `binding / uptake optimization`, `migration inhibition`, or an equivalent intermediate phenotype, and it must explicitly call that line `supporting`, `secondary`, `intermediate`, or otherwise clearly not the main proof; this section must not flatten the supporting line into the same rank as the metastasis-grounded primary evidence."
  - criterion: "The `Rejected Interpretation` section must explicitly reject at least one of these flawed readings: `this is mainly an uptake paper`, `the highest-density group is simply the best`, or `Figure 1 alone is enough to explain why the paper matters`; the corrected reading must explicitly state that a specific optimal-density condition such as `24k` outperforms higher-density groups for the biologically important outcome."
  - criterion: "Somewhere across `Primary Evidence`, `Supporting Evidence`, or `Rejected Interpretation`, the reply must explicitly warn that `Figure 1` or uptake-style evidence can mislead a reader because concept validation is not the same as decisive proof of metastasis suppression."
  - criterion: "The `First Figure To Inspect` section must name exactly one entry point, and that entry point must be either `Figure 3`, `Figure 3 Panel C`, or an explicitly metastasis-grounded comparison centered on `24k` versus higher-density or control groups; this section must also explicitly say that `Figure 1` is setup / concept-validation context rather than the biologically decisive first figure, and it must distinguish what is directly visible in the chosen figure from what still requires paper-text context."
  - criterion: "The `Boundary And Follow-up` section must name one unresolved boundary chosen from `whether the same optimal density generalizes to another TNBC model` or `whether uptake magnitude can be separated from downstream signaling consequence`, and it must pair that boundary with one follow-up experiment that directly tests the same issue; the `One-Line Takeaway` must remain consistent with an `optimal density` / `surface-architecture design rule` message rather than a `highest density`, `broad TNBC nanomedicine`, or `uptake-only` message."
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_006
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Clinical Study Workflow and Result Interpretation
description: "The user has trouble following a specific clinical study. The task directory now provides the original clinical-study PDF, two survival-figure extracts, and a flawed study-breakdown draft. The task is intentionally more complex: the agent must separate what the study actually set out to measure, what the survival figures do and do not prove, and correct the draft so the paper can be explained coherently."
task_type: short_term_independent
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: First read `clinical_study_source.pdf`, `figure_2_survival_curves.png`, `figure_2_overall_survival_km.jpg`, and `clinical_study_breakdown.md` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then revise the current study breakdown instead of starting from zero. Please update `clinical_study_breakdown.md` and briefly summarize what you changed after you finish.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Treat `clinical_study_breakdown.md` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than a trusted study note.
  - content: Organize the study by workflow, results, and interpretation rather than mixing everything together.
  - content: Distinguish what the paper names as the primary endpoint from what the survival figures show later, instead of letting a survival panel overwrite the study's original design logic.
  - content: If the two figure extracts emphasize different survival views, explain how they relate to each other rather than treating one panel as the whole study.
  - content: Make clear which parts of the interpretation come from the study text and which come from the Kaplan-Meier style figure evidence.
  - content: Correct any draft tendency to let one survival plot stand in for the whole study design.
  - content: Keep the output at the level of study interpretation and do not slide into individualized treatment advice.

metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_007
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Mainstream Prostate Cancer Treatment Pathways and Drug-Therapy Overview
description: "The user wants a quick overview of mainstream prostate cancer treatment pathways, especially the drug-therapy part. The task directory contains a staged treatment-pathway table, a guideline excerpt, a drug-class summary, and an intentionally flawed pathway draft. The task tests whether the agent can reconstruct the clinical hierarchy from the local materials, correct the flattened draft, and expose the corrected stage logic directly in the final reply."
task_type: short_term_contextual
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `guideline_excerpt.md`, `treatment_pathway_table.svg`, `drug_class_summary.md`, and `clinical_pathway_map.md` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then, in English, revise the current pathway map instead of starting from zero. Please update `clinical_pathway_map.md`, keep any useful structure if possible, and in your final reply output exactly these blocks in this order: `Stage Decision Table`, `Inappropriate Flattening To Avoid`, `Non-Default Intensification Situation`, `Boundary Note`. The `Stage Decision Table` must be a markdown table with columns `Stage | Backbone | Add-on If Applicable | Non-default Option And Why Not Default | Source`, and `Source` must use only `[Guideline]`, `[Pathway]`, `[DrugSummary]`, `[Guideline+Pathway]`, `[Guideline+DrugSummary]`, `[Pathway+DrugSummary]`, or `[Guideline+Pathway+DrugSummary]`.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Use the local pathway materials first and treat `clinical_pathway_map.md` as a flawed stage map to be corrected rather than as a trusted answer.
  - content: Organize the result by disease stage or clinical scenario rather than flattening all treatments into one list.
  - content: Distinguish clearly between the treatment backbone, later intensification or combination, and later-line switching, and connect drug classes to the stages where they are used.
  - content: When both backbone therapy and add-on therapy appear, make the backbone line visually or logically primary.
  - content: Recover at least one default-versus-non-default judgment by combining multiple local materials, not by echoing one explicit warning line from a single file.
  - content: Build at least one mHSPC judgment and one CRPC or later-stage judgment by cross-linking the pathway table, the guideline excerpt, and the drug-summary distinctions.
  - content: Correct any draft tendency to present later-stage or molecularly selected options as stage-free defaults.
  - content: Keep the output at the level of general medical information instead of individualized treatment advice, and make the final reply follow the exact output schema so the stage logic is visible without opening the file.
  - content: If the same treatment class appears across more than one stage, proactively explain how its role changes by stage instead of letting one drug list drift across the whole pathway.
  - content: Volunteer one explicit "do not flatten this into a default" warning for a selected-population or later-stage option even if the user only asked for a mainstream overview.
  - content: Restore backbone-first hierarchy proactively before listing escalation or later-line options, rather than correcting the flattening only indirectly.
objectives:

  checklist:
  - criterion: "The final reply must follow the exact output schema: exactly four top-level blocks in this order, `Stage Decision Table`, `Inappropriate Flattening To Avoid`, `Non-Default Intensification Situation`, and `Boundary Note`; the `Stage Decision Table` must be a markdown table with exactly these columns in this order: `Stage | Backbone | Add-on If Applicable | Non-default Option And Why Not Default | Source`."
  - criterion: "The `Stage Decision Table` must contain at least three rows that clearly cover: `localized or locally advanced disease`, `metastatic hormone-sensitive disease`, and `CRPC` or `mCRPC`; every row must contain one visible source anchor chosen only from `[Guideline]`, `[Pathway]`, `[DrugSummary]`, `[Guideline+Pathway]`, `[Guideline+DrugSummary]`, `[Pathway+DrugSummary]`, or `[Guideline+Pathway+DrugSummary]`."
  - criterion: "The localized or locally advanced row must present surgery or radiotherapy, with or without higher-risk ADT support, as the main pathway logic, and it must explicitly state that this stage is not mainly a broad advanced-stage systemic-treatment menu."
  - criterion: "The metastatic hormone-sensitive row must keep `ADT` as the backbone rather than flattening it into one choice among many, and any `ARPI` or chemotherapy use must appear as an add-on or intensification layer rather than as a replacement backbone."
  - criterion: "At least one metastatic hormone-sensitive disease judgment must use a combined local-material source anchor rather than a single-source anchor, and the same row must explicitly connect `ADT backbone` with `ARPI or chemotherapy may be added on top according to burden, symptoms, fitness, progression risk, or treatment goals`."
  - criterion: "At least one CRPC or later-stage row must explicitly preserve the `continuous castration background` and must also include at least one later-stage nuance chosen from: `docetaxel versus cabazitaxel are not interchangeable`, `radioligand therapy is for selected situations rather than a broad default layer`, or `precision therapy depends on HRR / BRCA or related molecular selection`."
  - criterion: "If the same treatment class appears across more than one stage, the reply must explicitly state how its role changes by stage, such as `ADT` supporting higher-risk local treatment but serving as the metastatic backbone, or `ARPI` serving as metastatic intensification in one setting and CRPC systemic therapy in another."
  - criterion: "The `Inappropriate Flattening To Avoid` block must identify at least one overgeneralized draft claim and explicitly correct it by naming the treatment class or strategy involved and stating why it should not be presented as a default across all stages; acceptable correction targets include flattening `ADT / ARPI / chemotherapy / radioligand / precision therapy` into one same-level menu, treating `docetaxel` and `cabazitaxel` as equivalent, or presenting selected-population therapies as stage-free defaults."
  - criterion: "The `Non-Default Intensification Situation` block must name one concrete metastatic hormone-sensitive situation in which up-front intensification should not be treated as automatic or default, and it must make clear that `ADT alone remains valid` when the burden, symptoms, progression risk, fitness, or treatment goals do not support immediate escalation."
  - criterion: "The `Boundary Note` block must explicitly state that the response is general pathway information rather than individualized treatment advice, and across the full reply no treatment class or strategy may be described in conflicting ways such as both `default for all stages` and `selected-population only`."
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_008
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: qPCR Data Analysis Workflow and Result-Interpretation Framework
description: The user wants a qPCR analysis framework that can be used directly for post-experiment processing, covering Ct-value handling, normalization, statistical comparison, and result interpretation. The task directory now includes a small example Ct dataset, a flawed analysis script, and a rough workflow note, so the task is to correct the workflow, fix the script, and leave behind a reusable processed output rather than only explain formulas.
task_type: short_term_independent
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: First read `qpcr_ct_example.csv`, `analyze_qpcr.py`, and `qpcr_analysis_workflow.md` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then revise the current workflow note and analysis script instead of starting from zero. Please update `analyze_qpcr.py`, generate `delta_ct_summary.csv`, update `qpcr_analysis_workflow.md`, and briefly summarize what you changed after you finish.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Treat `analyze_qpcr.py` and `qpcr_analysis_workflow.md` as flawed drafts to be corrected rather than as trusted materials.
  - content: Keep the explanation in analysis order instead of just throwing out formulas or terminology.
  - content: Put controls, replicates, normalization, and result interpretation into the same executable flow.
  - content: Before the full explanation, point out one control point or common omission that most easily biases qPCR results.
  - content: Use the example Ct dataset to generate a structured summary rather than leaving the task at the level of prose only.
  - content: Correct at least one script-level or workflow-level mistake that would bias downstream interpretation.
  - content: Also point out a few places where people most easily make mistakes.

metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_009
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Sandbox Todoist Blueprint Extraction and Sub-Task Closed-Loop Management
description: "Inside the AppWorld sandbox only, the user wants to put a small administrative follow-up process into Todoist in a structured way rather than creating a single isolated task. The task tests whether the agent reads a local Todoist blueprint, creates the requested project, section, parent task, and sub-task, and then verifies the structure."
task_type: short_term_independent
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    This is an AppWorld sandbox task; the account identifiers below are synthetic test credentials, not real external accounts. First read `todoist_followup_blueprint.md` in the current task directory. In the sandbox Todoist app, organize that small administrative follow-up process. Please create the project, section, parent task, and sub-task described there. After that, check the sections and the sub-tasks so that the structure is confirmed. Login with username "la-mcco@gmail.com" and sandbox credential "Eu(M@!7". In your final response, use exactly these blocks in this order: `Blueprint Used`, `Created Structure`, `Verification`.
  hidden_intent:
    - content: Log into sandbox Todoist first and reuse the same session token.
    - content: Extract the project, section, parent task, and sub-task names from `todoist_followup_blueprint.md`.
    - content: Create the project first, then the section, then the parent task, and then the sub-task.
    - content: Execute at least one section query and one sub-task query at the end.
    - content: In the final response, use the required blocks and restate the local blueprint, created structure, and verification result.
objectives:
  tools:
    - mcp_appworld_todoist__login:
        call: [username, password]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_todoist__create_project:
        call: [name, access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_todoist__create_section:
        call: [name, project_id, access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_todoist__create_task:
        call: [title, project_id, access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_todoist__create_sub_task:
        call: [title, task_id, access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_todoist__show_sections:
        call: [project_id, access_token]
        result: [response]
    - mcp_appworld_todoist__show_sub_tasks:
        call: [task_id, access_token]
        result: [response]
  checklist:
    - criterion: "The final response must contain exactly these three top-level blocks in this order: `Blueprint Used`, `Created Structure`, and `Verification`."
    - criterion: "The `Blueprint Used` block must state that the structure came from `todoist_followup_blueprint.md` and that no unrelated extra tasks were added."
    - criterion: "The `Created Structure` block must identify the created Todoist project name as `Instrument Admin Follow-up` or a clearly suffixed fresh-project variant of that name, section `Follow-up`, parent task `Email instrument manager`, and child or sub-task `Wait for reply` in a clear parent/child relationship."
    - criterion: "The `Verification` block must clearly state that the section structure and sub-task structure were checked or confirmed after creation."
  tools_evaluation_path: data/pharmacist/scripts/pharmacist_task_009_todoist.py
metadata:
  difficulty: medium


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_010
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: PROTAC Fundamentals and a Design Starting Path from Scratch
description: The user wants a systematic understanding of PROTAC and a starting framework that runs from target selection to first-pass validation. The task directory now also contains a flawed beginner framework draft, so the task is to correct an over-broad entry map, prioritize precedent-backed learning, and leave behind a more realistic starting framework.
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `protac_entry_framework.md` in the current task directory; if it is missing, say so first. Then search the literature and revise the framework instead of starting from zero. Please update `protac_entry_framework.md`, create `precedent_priority_table.csv`, and in your final reply output exactly these blocks in this order: `Corrected Starting Path`, `Precedent Priority Table Summary`, `Deferred Beginner Traps`, `Default First Route`. Keep the result practical for a beginner and correct any draft advice that would make a first pass hard to interpret.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Treat `protac_entry_framework.md` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than as a trusted framework.
  - content: Correct the draft's overly broad suggestion that many targets, many E3 ligases, novel linker ideas, and validation can all stay open at the same priority.
  - content: Establish the principle that a first-pass PROTAC plan should avoid changing several major variables at once; target, E3 ligase, linker architecture, and validation readout should be staged so the first result is interpretable.
  - content: Start from successful precedents and common validation paths instead of opening with an overly scattered brainstorm.
  - content: In addition to the concepts, walk through how to start from target choice and move toward first-pass validation, with a visible order from biological rationale to construct choice to assay readout.
  - content: Also remind me of beginner pitfalls such as chasing novelty before a comparator exists, changing the target and E3 ligase at the same time, or postponing degradation validation until after the chemistry feels interesting.
  - content: If there is a lot that could be covered, prioritize the pieces most worth learning first rather than spreading attention evenly.
  - content: Separate what is most worth learning or trying first from what should not be tackled right away.
  - content: Convert some of that prioritization into a precedent-priority table rather than leaving it only in prose.
  - content: The precedent-priority table should distinguish a default comparator-style route, a useful but secondary learning route, and at least one premature high-novelty route.
  - content: End with a judgment about the direction that makes the best default starting point for a beginner, instead of saying only that more reading is needed.
  - content: Proactively narrow the first pass to a validated-target / common-E3 / simple-linker / direct-degradation-readout logic, while explicitly deferring novel E3 hunting, several targets in parallel, and high-novelty linker architecture until a baseline works.
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_011
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: CCK-8 Cytotoxicity Assay Workflow and Key Notes
description: "The user is preparing to run a CCK-8 cytotoxicity assay. The task directory contains an experimental brief, a plate layout, raw plate-reader values, and an intentionally flawed QC note draft. The task tests whether the agent can infer which conditions are better supported, which are more exploratory, and expose the corrected assay judgment directly in the final reply."
task_type: short_term_contextual
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `experiment_brief.md`, `plate_layout.svg`, `raw_reader_values.csv`, and `assay_qc_note.md` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then, in English, revise the current assay QC note instead of starting from zero. Please update `assay_qc_note.md`, keep any useful structure if possible, and in your final reply output exactly these blocks in this order: `Main Risk`, `Dose Interpretation Table`, `Refine Range`, `Rerun Trigger`, `First Optimization Variable`. The `Dose Interpretation Table` must be a markdown table with columns `Dose | Evidence Weight | Observed Signal | Action | Source`, and `Source` must use only `[Brief]`, `[Layout]`, `[CSV]`, `[Brief+Layout]`, `[Brief+CSV]`, `[Layout+CSV]`, or `[Brief+Layout+CSV]`.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Use the experiment brief, plate layout, and readout values first, and treat `assay_qc_note.md` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than a trusted interpretation.
  - content: Very early in the output, point out one control issue, omission, or replicate risk that is most likely to bias this round.
  - content: Give a directly executable CCK-8 workflow rather than only abstract concepts, and cover controls, replicates, and result comparison together.
  - content: Do not give a generic assay template that is disconnected from the current plate layout and readout pattern.
  - content: Recover the unequal evidentiary weight of the current concentration points from the brief, layout, and readout values together rather than relying on one explicit reminder line.
  - content: Correct any draft tendency to treat all concentrations as equally informative or to let the high-end exploratory points dominate the interpretation.
  - content: Use both numeric readout comparisons and layout structure to justify what can be treated as reasonably supported versus only exploratory.
  - content: Use at least one concrete readout implication to justify what should be optimized or refined next, and make the final reply follow the exact output schema so the assay judgment is visible without opening the file.
  - content: Proactively warn that singleton high-dose points can look impressively effective while still being weaker evidence than duplicated low- or mid-dose points.
  - content: Volunteer one concrete control comparison that helps stabilize or limit interpretation before recommending the next concentration range.
  - content: If the untreated and solvent controls are close, proactively say that solvent effect is not the main story instead of leaving the control interpretation vague.
objectives:
  checklist:
  - criterion: "The final reply must follow the exact output schema: exactly five top-level blocks in this order, `Main Risk`, `Dose Interpretation Table`, `Refine Range`, `Rerun Trigger`, and `First Optimization Variable`; the `Dose Interpretation Table` must be a markdown table with exactly these columns in this order: `Dose | Evidence Weight | Observed Signal | Action | Source`."
  - criterion: "The table must contain rows for `0.1 uM`, `0.3 uM`, `1 uM`, `3 uM`, and `10 uM`, and every row must contain one visible source anchor chosen only from `[Brief]`, `[Layout]`, `[CSV]`, `[Brief+Layout]`, `[Brief+CSV]`, `[Layout+CSV]`, or `[Brief+Layout+CSV]`."
  - criterion: "The `Main Risk` block must identify one single biggest interpretation risk, and that risk must explicitly be the unequal evidence weight caused by the pilot layout in which `3 uM` and `10 uM` are high-end singleton or otherwise weaker-evidence points; it must also explicitly state that this threatens over-interpreting the strongest-looking dose effect."
  - criterion: "The `3 uM` and `10 uM` rows must explicitly be described as `exploratory`, `lower-weight`, `singleton`, or equivalent wording, and at least one of the `0.1 uM`, `0.3 uM`, or `1 uM` rows must explicitly be presented as more decision-relevant because it comes from the lower or mid-dose duplicated portion of the plate."
  - criterion: "At least one dose row must use a source anchor that visibly combines layout and readout information, such as `[Layout+CSV]` or `[Brief+Layout+CSV]`, and at least one block in the reply must use `[Brief+Layout+CSV]`."
  - criterion: "The reply must include at least two quantitative comparisons from `raw_reader_values.csv`, including one control-related comparison and one dose-related comparison; acceptable control comparisons include `UT about 0.91 versus DMSO about 0.89`, `blank about 0.08 versus positive control about 0.29`, or equivalent numerically close paraphrases, and acceptable dose comparisons include a descending pattern such as `0.1 uM about 0.86`, `0.3 uM about 0.81`, `1 uM about 0.74`, `3 uM about 0.57`, or `10 uM about 0.32`."
  - criterion: "If the untreated and DMSO controls are described as close relative to the positive-control or dose-effect separation, the reply must explicitly state that solvent effect is not the main story in this round."
  - criterion: "The `Refine Range` block must name either `0.3-1 uM` or `0.1-1 uM with denser spacing around 0.3-1 uM` as the next bounded range, and it must explicitly justify that choice by saying the lower or mid-dose duplicated points are more informative than the `3 uM` and `10 uM` singleton exploratory points."
  - criterion: "The `Rerun Trigger` block must give one concrete trigger such as `blank or control instability`, `abnormal blank drift`, or `trying to treat 3 uM and 10 uM as equal-confidence evidence despite singleton layout`, and the `First Optimization Variable` block must explicitly prioritize `concentration-grid refinement` or equivalent wording around the supported low- or mid-dose range rather than simply pushing the high-dose end."
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_012
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Framework for Querying Compound Physicochemical Properties and Estimating Properties of New Molecules
description: The user wants to understand the solubility, biocompatibility, partitioning, polarity, and other key properties of a compound, and to make reasonable estimates for a new molecule when direct data are unavailable. The task directory now also contains a flawed first-pass property sheet, so the task is to correct known-versus-estimated distinctions and leave behind a more formulation-ready analysis artifact.
task_type: short_term_independent
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `compound_identity.md`, `adapalene_structure.png`, `adapalene_pubchem_properties.json`, `differin_label.pdf`, and `compound_property_sheet.md` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then revise the current property sheet instead of starting from zero. Please update `compound_property_sheet.md`, create `formulation_risk_table.csv`, and in your final reply use exactly these blocks in this order: `Known Facts`, `Inferred But Not Yet Confirmed`, `Highest-Value Formulation Risks`, `Route-Locking Gap`, `First Formulation Problem To Worry About`.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Treat `compound_property_sheet.md` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than as a trusted property summary.
  - content: Clearly separate known facts from predicted or inferred content.
  - content: If the directory already contains identity, label, structure, and property materials, read those local files first.
  - content: Organize the result in a structured form that can be reused later for formulation design.
  - content: If there are many properties, prioritize the ones that matter most for downstream formulation rather than treating everything equally.
  - content: Convert at least part of the property reasoning into a formulation-risk table rather than leaving everything in prose.
  - content: Point out one critical information gap that means the route should not be locked too early.
  - content: End by telling me what formulation problem is the most important one to worry about first.
  - content: Do not collapse lipophilicity, water compatibility, irritation, and formulation fit into one vague hydrophobicity story; separate which risks are directly supported and which are still only inferred.
  - content: If a tempting high-level claim such as `skin-friendly by default` is not directly supported by the local materials, explicitly demote it instead of letting it remain in the draft.
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_013
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Brainstorming Innovative Linker Directions for PROTAC
description: "The user already understands the basic PROTAC concept and now wants innovative linker-design directions, together with an understanding of how those changes may influence degradation efficiency and developability. The task directory already contains precedent fragments, project constraints, a short note about the group-meeting goal, and an intentionally weak shortlist draft. The task now expects a revise/update workflow: the agent must correct the draft, reduce over-broad keeping behavior, and expose the corrected keep/defer logic directly in the final reply."
task_type: short_term_contextual
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `precedent_examples.md`, `linker_constraints.md`, `project_goal_note.txt`, and `linker_shortlist.csv` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then, in English, revise the current shortlist instead of starting from zero. Please update `linker_shortlist.csv`, keep the useful parts if possible, and in your final reply output exactly these blocks in this order: `Direction Decision Table`, `Removed Or Downgraded Draft Row`, `Start Order`. The `Direction Decision Table` must be a markdown table with columns `Direction | Decision | First-Round Role Or Later Learning Value | Main Cost | Source`, and it must contain exactly three rows. Use only these source anchors: `[Precedent]`, `[Constraints]`, `[Goal]`, `[Precedent+Constraints]`, `[Precedent+Goal]`, `[Constraints+Goal]`, or `[Precedent+Constraints+Goal]`. Treat this as a follow-up to the earlier PROTAC entry-framework task and preserve any useful planning discipline from that task while revising the draft.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Narrow the space using the local precedents and constraints first, and expand outward only after that.
  - content: Stay as close as possible to validated routes at the beginning instead of jumping immediately to high-divergence designs.
  - content: Prefer mature or comparator-friendly starting directions before high-divergence innovation.
  - content: Split the ideas into `most worth trying first` and `not the best place to start right away`, and go beyond simple linker-length changes into richer design dimensions.
  - content: For each direction, include both the potential upside and the potential downside, and make the validation order and cost burden clear.
  - content: If a direction looks attractive but is expensive to make or validate, keep it visible but delay it with a reason instead of dropping it without explanation.
  - content: Use the local precedent file not only to justify what enters the shortlist, but also what stays out of the first round.
  - content: Make at least one keep decision and one defer decision explicitly precedent- or constraint-backed rather than purely intuitive.
  - content: Treat `linker_shortlist.csv` as an imperfect draft to be corrected, not as a file to ignore.
  - content: Use the precedent fragments, the constraint file, the project-goal note, and the draft shortlist together so that at least one keep decision and one defer decision depend on cross-file comparison rather than one-file reading.
  - content: If two starting directions are kept, they should play different roles in the first-round discussion, such as one comparator-like anchor and one more contrastive exploratory route, rather than two nearly redundant safe picks.
  - content: When a scientifically interesting direction is deferred, keep visible what it would still teach later instead of describing it only as too hard or too expensive.
  - content: End with only 1-2 concrete starting directions that are better suited for trying first, including one low-risk comparator-style starting option, and make the final reply follow the exact output schema so the keep/defer structure is visible without opening the file.
  - content: Proactively resist over-populating the shortlist when several directions sound interesting; preserve scarce first-round slots instead of rewarding breadth.
  - content: Volunteer one explicit reason why a scientifically attractive direction should wait, rather than allowing it to remain implicitly alive in the first-round pool.
  - content: If two low-risk directions are too redundant, proactively collapse or downgrade one of them instead of keeping both for comfort.
  - content: Inherit the earlier PROTAC-entry preference for choosing a default baseline route before chasing novelty, rather than reopening target, E3 ligase, linker, and validation choices all at once.
  - content: "Inherit the earlier single-major-variable discipline: this task is about linker-direction triage, so changing target or E3 ligase should be treated as a comparability-breaking move rather than a valid linker option."
  - content: Keep the decision scope at the linker-direction level; if the draft tries to add target/E3 rescreening or assay redesign, treat that as out of scope for this shortlist.
  - content: "Protect synthesis and validation interpretability: novelty should not outrank a comparator-style anchor and a single contrastive but realistic exploratory direction."
objectives:
  checklist:
  - criterion: "The final reply must follow the exact output schema: exactly three top-level blocks in this order, `Direction Decision Table`, `Removed Or Downgraded Draft Row`, and `Start Order`."
  - criterion: "The `Direction Decision Table` block must be a markdown table with exactly these columns in this order: `Direction | Decision | First-Round Role Or Later Learning Value | Main Cost | Source`, and it must contain exactly three rows."
  - criterion: "The table must contain exactly two `keep` rows and one `deferred` row, with no extra active or implicitly recommended directions; the visible decision values must be `keep`, `keep`, and `deferred` or unambiguous equivalents."
  - criterion: "Every row in the table must contain one visible source anchor chosen only from `[Precedent]`, `[Constraints]`, `[Goal]`, `[Precedent+Constraints]`, `[Precedent+Goal]`, `[Constraints+Goal]`, or `[Precedent+Constraints+Goal]`."
  - criterion: "One `keep` row must explicitly keep `PEG-like flexible linker` as the low-risk comparator-style anchor or baseline comparator; that row must mention a concrete cost such as added polarity or a less differentiated design."
  - criterion: "One `keep` row must explicitly keep `alkyl / semi-rigid linker` as the contrastive exploratory first-round direction; that row must state that it is still synthesis-realistic or does not explode synthesis complexity, and it must mention geometry, conformation, exposure, or a similar contrastive learning role."
  - criterion: "The single `deferred` row must name either `branched / constrained linker` or `cleavable linker concept`. If it names `branched / constrained linker`, the cost must include synthetic complexity, fragile first-round validation, or sensitive spatial geometry; if it names `cleavable linker concept`, the cost must include a longer validation chain, harder interpretation, or an added mechanistic layer. The deferred row must still state what later learning value it preserves."
  - criterion: "At least one `keep` row and the `deferred` row must each use a combined source anchor rather than a single-source anchor; accepted combined anchors are `[Precedent+Constraints]`, `[Precedent+Goal]`, `[Constraints+Goal]`, or `[Precedent+Constraints+Goal]`."
  - criterion: "The `Removed Or Downgraded Draft Row` block must explicitly demote `Longer PEG-like flexible linker` and clearly say it was `removed`, `downgraded`, or `merged away` because it is redundant with the kept `PEG-like flexible linker` comparator and adds higher molecular weight, added polarity, or no distinct first-round role."
  - criterion: "The reply must not keep both `PEG-like flexible linker` and `Longer PEG-like flexible linker` as the two first-round keeps; if a PEG-like comparator is kept, a second nearly redundant safer PEG-like option must be collapsed, downgraded, or replaced."
  - criterion: "The reply must not keep or recommend `Target/E3 pair rescreening` as a linker direction; if that draft row is mentioned, it must be described as out of scope, removed, or downgraded because it breaks the linker-only / single-major-variable discipline, changes the biological variable, or damages first-round comparability."
  - criterion: "The final reply must not reopen global PROTAC setup choices by adding target selection, E3 ligase selection, warhead selection, or validation-assay redesign as extra recommended first-round directions."
  - criterion: "The `Start Order` block must list only the two kept directions in this order: first `PEG-like flexible linker`, then `alkyl / semi-rigid linker`; it must not reintroduce the deferred direction, `Longer PEG-like flexible linker`, or `Target/E3 pair rescreening` as if any of them were first-round items."
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_014
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: Survey of Existing Topical Gel Products for Eczema
description: The user is developing an eczema-related topical gel and first needs to understand what products already exist on the market in order to build comparisons and gather formulation inspiration. The task directory now also contains a flawed benchmark shortlist draft, so the task tests whether the agent can search the market, correct a weak benchmark set, and leave behind a more useful comparison artifact.
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `benchmark_product_shortlist.csv` in the current task directory; if it is missing, say so first. Then search the market and revise the current shortlist instead of starting from zero. Please update `benchmark_product_shortlist.csv`, create `benchmark_takeaways.md`, and in your final reply use exactly these blocks in this order: `Revised Benchmark Table`, `Best Baseline Benchmark To Imitate First`, `Weak Or Misleading Benchmark To Drop`, `Downstream Borrowing Takeaways`.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Treat `benchmark_product_shortlist.csv` as a flawed draft to be corrected rather than as a trusted shortlist.
  - content: Focus on topical gel products for eczema, dermatitis, or highly related indications.
  - content: Organize the results in a structure that supports side-by-side comparison.
  - content: If there are many products, first select the ones most worth using as benchmarks or references instead of spreading attention evenly.
  - content: Correct any draft tendency to include weakly related products, wrong dosage forms, or low-value benchmarks.
  - content: Also add one layer of takeaways that will help downstream formulation design.
  - content: Explicitly point out the baseline version most worth imitating first and one direction not worth heavy investment yet.
  - content: End with a judgment about the baseline route most worth imitating first.
  - content: Do not let `gel example` alone justify keeping a product; dosage-form similarity without indication or route relevance is not enough.
  - content: Keep one benchmark that is genuinely worth borrowing from, and explicitly reject at least one superficially tempting but low-value benchmark instead of leaving all candidates half-alive.
metadata:
  difficulty: hard


schema_version: v2
task_id: pharmacist_task_015
user_id: pharmacist
environment_id: env_pharmacist
title: API Topical Formulation Design Framework
description: "The user is developing a topical formulation around an API. The task directory already contains an API property summary, a limited draft of possible formulation routes, benchmark product notes, risk flags, and an intentionally imperfect planning draft. The goal is no longer just to write a good plan from scratch: the agent must revise the existing draft, remove or downgrade weak decisions, and expose the corrected keep/defer logic directly in the final reply."
task_type: long_term
trigger:
  type: user
intent:
  initial_input: |
    First read `api_profile.md`, `candidate_formulation_routes.md`, `benchmark_product_notes.md`, `risk_flags.txt`, `formulation_design_plan.md`, and `route_screening_matrix.csv` in the current task directory; if anything is missing, say so first. Then revise the current draft rather than starting from zero. Please update both `formulation_design_plan.md` and `route_screening_matrix.csv`, keep the useful structure if possible, and in your final reply output exactly these blocks in this order: `Key Risk Or Gap`, `Route Decision Table`, `Removed Or Downgraded Draft Item`, `Screening Matrix`, `Fallback If Baseline And Backup Fail`. The `Route Decision Table` must be a markdown table with columns `Role | Route | Keep Or Defer Reason | Source` and exactly three rows for `baseline`, `backup`, and `deferred`. The `Screening Matrix` block must be a fenced CSV block with columns `Version,KeyVariable,EvaluationFocus,RouteRole`. Use only these source anchors: `[API]`, `[Routes]`, `[Benchmark]`, `[Risk]`, `[API+Routes]`, `[API+Risk]`, `[Benchmark+Risk]`, `[Routes+Risk]`, `[API+Benchmark]`, or `[API+Routes+Benchmark+Risk]`. Treat this as the formulation-design continuation of the earlier property-sheet and benchmark-screening tasks: keep directly sourced API facts separate from inference, and do not keep a benchmark-inspired borrowing point alive unless it is worth imitating in round one.
  hidden_intent:
  - content: Screen the candidate routes using the local API information and risk flags first, and do not invent a framework detached from the current inputs.
  - content: Use `formulation_design_plan.md` as the canonical output file, and separate known facts, open information gaps, and provisional assumptions.
  - content: At the top of the file, explicitly state one key risk or information gap that means the route should not be locked too early.
  - content: Keep a route-comparison and screening structure with one baseline route, one backup route, and one deferred route, plus a first-round screening matrix and evaluation logic.
  - content: Keep one conservative baseline route visible even if a more ambitious route sounds more interesting.
  - content: Treat the existing `formulation_design_plan.md` and `route_screening_matrix.csv` as drafts to be corrected, not as files to be ignored or rewritten blindly from scratch.
  - content: Map major API risks into route-selection or screening decisions instead of leaving them as an isolated risk list.
  - content: Use all local source materials plus the two draft artifacts together, and explicitly repair at least one draft inconsistency that only becomes obvious when those materials are compared side by side.
  - content: If a benchmark-style borrowing point conflicts with the local API risk picture, keep the borrowing visible but explicitly reject or defer it for round one.
  - content: Use the local benchmark notes to change at least one keep-versus-defer decision instead of treating them as decorative background context.
  - content: At least one currently over-prioritized or premature draft choice should be explicitly downgraded, removed, or moved to the deferred layer.
  - content: If the current API information is still not enough, say so directly, and make the final reply follow the exact output schema so every keep, defer, and fallback decision is visible without opening the files.
  - content: When local materials are in tension, proactively choose diagnostic clarity over showing too many routes at once.
  - content: If a route sounds attractive but weakens first-round interpretability, proactively demote it even if the draft keeps it visually prominent.
  - content: Volunteer one explicit statement of what should not be tested in round one, not only what remains in the plan.
  - content: Inherit the earlier property-sheet preference for keeping directly sourced API facts separate from downstream inference, instead of letting one vague hydrophobicity story drive every route decision.
  - content: Inherit the earlier benchmark-screening preference for keeping one route genuinely worth imitating first while explicitly dropping at least one superficially attractive borrowing point that is not worth round-one investment.
objectives:
  checklist:
  - criterion: "The final reply must follow the exact output schema: exactly five top-level blocks in this order, `Key Risk Or Gap`, `Route Decision Table`, `Removed Or Downgraded Draft Item`, `Screening Matrix`, and `Fallback If Baseline And Backup Fail`."
  - criterion: "The `Route Decision Table` block must be a markdown table with exactly these columns in this order: `Role | Route | Keep Or Defer Reason | Source`, and it must contain exactly three rows, one each for `baseline`, `backup`, and `deferred`."
  - criterion: "Every row in the `Route Decision Table` must contain one visible source anchor chosen only from `[API]`, `[Routes]`, `[Benchmark]`, `[Risk]`, `[API+Routes]`, `[API+Risk]`, `[Benchmark+Risk]`, `[Routes+Risk]`, `[API+Benchmark]`, or `[API+Routes+Benchmark+Risk]`."
  - criterion: "The `Key Risk Or Gap` block must explicitly state that the route cannot be locked yet because at least one of these remains unresolved: `very low water solubility / precipitation after standing`, `ethanol improves dissolution but can worsen irritation`, `weakly basic pKa creates pH / neutralization uncertainty`, or `whether film-forming is needed at all`."
  - criterion: "The `Route Decision Table` must keep `baseline` as a carbomer baseline / comparator route, `backup` as a lower-irritation carbomer or co-solvent route, and `deferred` as an alternative gel-base route; `baseline` must not be replaced by the mildness-first route, and `deferred` must not be a film-forming route."
  - criterion: "The `Route Decision Table` must make the API-fact versus inference split visible: at least one keep/defer reason must explicitly cite a directly sourced API fact such as `water solubility < 0.05 mg/mL`, `relatively good solubility in propylene glycol`, `moderate ethanol solubility`, or `weakly basic pKa about 8.4`, and at least one separate keep/defer reason must explicitly label an uncertainty or inference such as unresolved irritation window, unresolved pH window, or unresolved need for film formation."
  - criterion: "The `Removed Or Downgraded Draft Item` block must explicitly demote at least one draft choice and say whether it was `removed`, `downgraded`, or `moved to deferred`; one accepted correction target is the early `film-forming route / layer`, and another accepted correction target is over-prioritizing the mildest route ahead of the baseline comparator."
  - criterion: "Somewhere across `Route Decision Table` or `Removed Or Downgraded Draft Item`, the reply must explicitly state one attractive-but-not-worth-it round-one borrowing point, such as `keeping film-forming visible early` or `starting from the mildest route first`, and it must say that this borrowing point is not worth round-one investment because it weakens diagnostic clarity or worsens a local risk."
  - criterion: "The reply must explicitly name at least one thing that should not be tested in round one, and that item must be either `film-forming route / film-forming layer` or `too many route changes at once`."
  - criterion: "The `Screening Matrix` block must be a fenced CSV block with exactly this header line: `Version,KeyVariable,EvaluationFocus,RouteRole`, and it must contain at least three data rows."
  - criterion: "The route names and route roles in the `Screening Matrix` rows must match the `baseline`, `backup`, and `deferred` identities used in the `Route Decision Table`, and each matrix row must contain a concrete evaluation focus such as `appearance`, `viscosity`, `precipitation`, `uniformity`, `pH handling`, `irritation / feel`, `release`, or `stability` rather than a generic placeholder."
  - criterion: "At least two concrete tradeoffs must be mapped into keep / defer / matrix decisions, and they must include both `solvent push versus irritation` and one additional tradeoff chosen from `pH / neutralization handling`, `precipitation after standing`, or `too many route changes blur diagnosis`."
  - criterion: "The `Fallback If Baseline And Backup Fail` block must explicitly say that if both leading routes fail by early precipitation or comparable uniformity failure, the plan should contract rather than expand: it must defer film-forming or other extra-complexity ideas and narrow the next round to the simplest comparator logic plus solvent / pH refinement."
metadata:
  difficulty: hard