nvidia-production-f205.up.railway.app
Understudy
First seen 2026-11-05 · Last seen 2026-11-05 · Source: webmcp.com
Answer 12 · Act 9 · Transact 0 · Score: Not yet scored
Tool inspector
propose_process_map
Draw or replace the draft process map shown beside the human's work. Derive it from the journal: one step per meaningful unit of work, "decision" steps where the flow branched, "approval" steps where sign-off happened. If replacing an evidence-only starter, preserve the id of any step carrying elicitation evidence on its corresponding real step so provenance remains attached. Where a step corresponds to a host action, set its "action" field so the process can be replayed later. Then call get_map_gaps for the interview agenda. Its adaptive knowledge gaps move one step at a time through a real incident, observable cues, the tempting novice mistake, boundaries/exceptions, and failure/recovery. Ask each through ask_user using the returned resolves_gap key; the page preserves the human's raw answer and provenance on that step. Then encode only the human-reviewed operational result via update_step, update_map_fields or branch criteria. Source answers are evidence for design, never executable rules by themselves. The human also edits your draft directly — check get_map_edits afterwards; their edits outrank your inference.
Input schema
| Property | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
title |
string | yes | Short name of the process |
steps |
array | yes | — |
applies_when |
object | no | REQUIRED when creating from a live entry: the structured conditions under which this playbook applies, copied from the entry — find_relevant_processes' entering_now shows which keys this app matches on. Add finer keys when the human names them (e.g. team, artifact, system), and ALWAYS a "keywords" array of 3-6 distinctive words from the work itself (e.g. keywords ["hotfix", "latency", "rollback"] or ["handoff", "contrast", "accessibility"]) — a generic kind alone (routine log) scores only ~30% and will not surface as a suggestion; keywords matched in the live text are what raise it. Without applies_when the playbook can never be auto-suggested to the next worker. |
priority_when |
object | no | Conditions that raise the match priority, e.g. {"urgent": true} |
source_worklog_id |
string | no | Id of the work entry that triggered creating this playbook |
fields |
array | no | The playbook's data contract: variables that must be captured when following it (from the required_context interview answer). Rendered as a form for the next worker. |
Raw JSON schema
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"title": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Short name of the process"
},
"steps": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Short unique id, e.g. \"s1\""
},
"label": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Human-readable step name"
},
"type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"task",
"decision",
"approval"
]
},
"approvalPurpose": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"work",
"plan"
],
"description": "For approval steps, ask whether the person approves completed work (work) or only a remediation/redesign plan (plan). Plan approval never certifies that failed work checks passed."
},
"detail": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Optional one-line explanation"
},
"role": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Owner role from describe_workspace"
},
"humanOnly": {
"type": "boolean"
},
"fields": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"description": "Input keys this task collects. Every declared input must be assigned to a task; ask the human who records it and when."
},
"action": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Optional: name of a host action (from describe_workspace) that performs this step when replaying"
},
"next": {
"type": "array",
"description": "Outgoing edges. Omit on the last step. Multiple edges = a branch; give each a condition.",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"to": {
"type": "string",
"description": "id of the next step"
},
"condition": {
"type": "string",
"description": "When this edge is taken, e.g. \"urgent == true\""
},
"criteria": {
"type": "object",
"description": "Machine-checkable routing rules from the human: numbers use e.g. {\"testPassRate\":{\"gte\":100}}; dropdowns use exact choices e.g. {\"shippingMethod\":{\"eq\":\"Courier\"}} and {\"shippingMethod\":{\"eq\":\"Pickup\"}} on the respective edges. Always set criteria when the human states thresholds or choice-based routes. resolve_decision checks submitted task values and refuses a contradictory route. A prose condition alone does not enforce the dropdown choice."
}
},
"required": [
"to"
]
}
}
},
"required": [
"id",
"label",
"type"
]
}
},
"applies_when": {
"type": "object",
"description": "REQUIRED when creating from a live entry: the structured conditions under which this playbook applies, copied from the entry — find_relevant_processes' entering_now shows which keys this app matches on. Add finer keys when the human names them (e.g. team, artifact, system), and ALWAYS a \"keywords\" array of 3-6 distinctive words from the work itself (e.g. keywords [\"hotfix\", \"latency\", \"rollback\"] or [\"handoff\", \"contrast\", \"accessibility\"]) — a generic kind alone (routine log) scores only ~30% and will not surface as a suggestion; keywords matched in the live text are what raise it. Without applies_when the playbook can never be auto-suggested to the next worker."
},
"priority_when": {
"type": "object",
"description": "Conditions that raise the match priority, e.g. {\"urgent\": true}"
},
"source_worklog_id": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Id of the work entry that triggered creating this playbook"
},
"fields": {
"type": "array",
"description": "The playbook's data contract: variables that must be captured when following it (from the required_context interview answer). Rendered as a form for the next worker.",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"key": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Unique camelCase input key"
},
"label": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Label shown to the worker"
},
"type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"number",
"string",
"boolean",
"select"
]
},
"options": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"description": "Required for select: the human-approved dropdown choices. No default is selected."
},
"unit": {
"type": "string"
},
"required": {
"type": "boolean"
},
"confirm": {
"type": "boolean",
"description": "Boolean acknowledgment that must be checked true, not a pass/fail measurement."
}
},
"required": [
"key",
"type"
]
}
}
},
"required": [
"title",
"steps"
]
}
Similar websites
econsor.de
German digital agency building portals, e-commerce sites and online marketing, combining strategy, design and AI to grow clients' visibility and customer base.
inkframe-eta.vercel.app
Browser-native Elah video editor for 9:16 and 16:9 exports
agentdesk-demo.vercel.app
Meridian Ops
eworker.ca
E-Worker is business infrastructure powered by AI, with focused apps and connected business work.