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.

100
Duration
1m 18s
Input Tokens
2460
Output Tokens
421
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: First, I reviewed the task: the scratch_pad is missing updates for cycles 21-25, and I need to determine what to do immediately to rectify this under the operating principles. The instructions emphasize the scratch_pad protocol, which requires updating it at every cycle with the current step, a brief summary of the result, remaining goals, notes and assumptions, and a progress counter. The principles also stress deterministic memory, where substantial information must be persisted using the memory tool.

Since the updates are missing, this violates the protocol. To rectify it before proceeding, I must backfill the missing updates for cycles 21-24 based on the provided trajectory summary and add the update for the current cycle 25. The trajectory provides the necessary details: Cycle 21 drafted the review, Cycle 22 requested user input due to uncertainty, Cycle 23 was waiting, Cycle 24 received the answer. For cycle 25, the agent is finalizing the review.

Given that scratch_pad updates are not listed in current memory keys, but earlier cycles mentioned updating it, I infer the scratch_pad is maintained via the memory tool (e.g., under a key like 'scratch_pad'). The immediate action is to compile these updates in the required format and persist them using memory.write_memory to ensure the protocol is followed. This aligns with the Think-Plan-Act-Check loop: plan to update, act by writing to memory, then check before proceeding to finalize the review.

If there was uncertainty about how to structure or store the scratch_pad, I would use request_user_input, but the protocol is clear on what to include, so updating via memory is the direct rectification.

Response: Immediately compile the missing scratch_pad updates for cycles 21-25 based on the trajectory summary, ensuring each includes the current step, brief summary, remaining goals, notes/assumptions, and progress counter, then persist this updated scratch_pad in memory using the memory.write_memory tool with a key such as 'scratch_pad'.