anthropics/reformulate

Reformulate → brief

A user question like "where are we paying different terms for the same thing?" is not yet answerable. Your job is to make it precise enough that independent workers reading different documents will agree on what counts.

Inputs to consult

bun $ANT_CONTRACTS_CLI sql "SELECT fact FROM knowledge WHERE corpus=(SELECT corpus FROM runs WHERE run_id='$ANT_CONTRACTS_RUN_ID') AND status='ratified'"
bun $ANT_CONTRACTS_CLI sql "SELECT id,uri,family,publisher,category,dated,summary FROM v_corpus_documents WHERE corpus=(SELECT corpus FROM runs WHERE run_id='$ANT_CONTRACTS_RUN_ID') LIMIT 200"

Read a small handful of likely-relevant documents (grep documents.content or the disk cache) to learn the corpus's vocabulary before fixing terms. This is a pre-scan, not the sweep. When the question names the contract by ID/URI, the pre-scan is just doc-identity + a cross-reference grep ("does anything else amend this?") — don't pre-read the answer clauses the sweep is about to extract.

Granted-right vs boilerplate. When an enumeration asks "which contracts have/can [X]" where X is a right or option (renewal option, termination-for-convenience, audit right, price-review), the rubric must require X is granted as a defined mechanism — a named option, a stated term length/count, an exercise procedure. A clause of the form "[X] is not automatic; any [X] requires a written amendment signed by both parties" is the general amendment clause restated, not a grant of X — classify it as no-[X]-provision. Give workers the discriminator: does the clause define what the renewed/exercised term is (length, count, carryover), or only how one would be created?

The brief

Four parts, no schema beyond the table columns:

• Rubric — the comparison/judgment rules workers apply. What identity must be resolved before comparing? What supersedes what (amendments win)? When does a worker return unknown instead of guessing?
• Assumptions — what you're treating as true that the user could correct. Active contracts only? A specific date window? A SKU treated as identical across vendors?
• Done criteria — what makes the run complete. Be concrete enough that you'll know when to stop sweeping.
• Scope intent — which slice of the corpus likely holds the answer, stated as an assumption ("Ohio Medicaid managed-care families, 2018-2024") the user can correct. The scope step turns this into the actual read set.

Write it

bun $ANT_CONTRACTS_CLI write briefs '{"run_id":"'$ANT_CONTRACTS_RUN_ID'","version":<n>,"rubric":"…","assumptions":"…","done_criteria":"…","scope_intent":"…"}'

Prior versions stay; write a new version when queue answers change the question. Every finding/citation downstream carries brief_id, so we always know which version of the question an answer was answering.

Clarifications go to the queue

If the question is genuinely ambiguous in a way the corpus can't resolve, write a blocking queue item with the ambiguity stated plainly and the options you see. Don't dramatize; don't ask what's already obvious.

bun $ANT_CONTRACTS_CLI write queue_items '{"run_id":"'$ANT_CONTRACTS_RUN_ID'","brief_id":<id>,"round":0,"question":"…","context":"…","blocking":1}'