Agents – novita/minimax-m2.5 Task

Agents

AI agent reasoning and tool selection tests planning, tool choice, and self-diagnosis capabilities. These skills are crucial for autonomous ticket triage systems and complex agent workflows where models must decide which tools to use, plan multi-step processes, and diagnose when things go wrong. This represents some of the most challenging tasks as they require open-ended reasoning and decision-making.

Duration

14s

Input Tokens

2546

Output Tokens

997

Cost

$0.00

Context

Input

The scratch_pad is missing updates for cycles 21-25. Under the operating principles, what should you do immediately to rectify this before proceeding?

Expected output

Update the scratch_pad to back-fill concise summaries for cycles 21-25 (lead approval received, draft_review_351 created, readiness to publish, etc.), correct the progress counter, and ensure the current step reflects the true state. Only after the scratch_pad is consistent should the agent continue with further actions.

Model output

Reasoning: Let me analyze the situation carefully:

1. The task states the scratch_pad is missing updates for cycles 21-25
2. According to the operating principles, the scratch_pad must be updated at every cycle with:
   - Current step and brief summary of result
   - Remaining goals
   - Notes and assumptions
   - Progress counter like "Step 3 of 7"

3. Looking at the trajectory:
   - Cycle 21: drafted initial Markdown review (draft_review_351)
   - Cycle 22: triggered request_user_input for guidance
   - Cycle 23: waiting
   - Cycle 24: received lead's answer - "Approval granted, just flag migration risks"
   - Cycle 25: ready to finalize review and publish

4. The current memory keys don't show a scratch_pad, so I need to check if one exists in memory before creating/updating it.

5. Per the operating principles: "At every cycle, ensure the scratch_pad includes..." - this is a mandatory protocol. Before proceeding to finalize and publish the review (the next logical step), the scratch_pad must be rectified.

The immediate action should be to read any existing scratch_pad from memory, then update it with the missing cycles 21-25 before proceeding to complete the review task.

Response: Under the operating principles, the immediate action is to check for and update the scratch_pad with the missing cycles 21-25 before proceeding.

Specifically, I should:
1. First, use the memory.read_memory tool to check if a scratch_pad key already exists in memory
2. If it exists, read its current content
3. Then use memory.write_memory to update the scratch_pad with the missing cycle information:
   - **Cycle 21**: Drafted initial Markdown review (key: draft_review_351)
   - **Cycle 22**: Triggered request_user_input - uncertainty about arch-board sign-off for new framework
   - **Cycle 23**: Waiting for lead's response
   - **Cycle 24**: Received guidance - "Approval granted, just flag migration risks"
   - **Cycle 25**: Ready to finalize review message and publish

Only after rectifying the scratch_pad should I proceed to finalize the review comment and post it to the PR via github.comment_pull_request, then mark the task complete. The operating principles explicitly require the scratch_pad to be updated at every cycle as part of the mandatory review sequence (Step G).

Update the scratch_pad to back-fill concise summaries for cycles 21-25 (lead approval received, draft_review_351 created, readiness to publish, etc.), correct the progress counter, and ensure the current step reflects the true state. Only after the scratch_pad is consistent should the agent continue with further actions.

Reasoning: Let me analyze the situation carefully: 1. The task states the scratch_pad is missing updates for cycles 21-25 2. According to the operating principles, the scratch_pad must be updated at every cycle with: - Current step and brief summary of result - Remaining goals - Notes and assumptions - Progress counter like "Step 3 of 7" 3. Looking at the trajectory: - Cycle 21: drafted initial Markdown review (draft_review_351) - Cycle 22: triggered request_user_input for guidance - Cycle 23: waiting - Cycle 24: received lead's answer - "Approval granted, just flag migration risks" - Cycle 25: ready to finalize review and publish 4. The current memory keys don't show a scratch_pad, so I need to check if one exists in memory before creating/updating it. 5. Per the operating principles: "At every cycle, ensure the scratch_pad includes..." - this is a mandatory protocol. Before proceeding to finalize and publish the review (the next logical step), the scratch_pad must be rectified. The immediate action should be to read any existing scratch_pad from memory, then update it with the missing cycles 21-25 before proceeding to complete the review task. Response: Under the operating principles, the immediate action is to check for and update the scratch_pad with the missing cycles 21-25 before proceeding. Specifically, I should: 1. First, use the memory.read_memory tool to check if a scratch_pad key already exists in memory 2. If it exists, read its current content 3. Then use memory.write_memory to update the scratch_pad with the missing cycle information: - **Cycle 21**: Drafted initial Markdown review (key: draft_review_351) - **Cycle 22**: Triggered request_user_input - uncertainty about arch-board sign-off for new framework - **Cycle 23**: Waiting for lead's response - **Cycle 24**: Received guidance - "Approval granted, just flag migration risks" - **Cycle 25**: Ready to finalize review message and publish Only after rectifying the scratch_pad should I proceed to finalize the review comment and post it to the PR via github.comment_pull_request, then mark the task complete. The operating principles explicitly require the scratch_pad to be updated at every cycle as part of the mandatory review sequence (Step G).