automateyournetwork/network-report-documents

Network Report Documents

Four compositions built on document-mcp. This skill owns what goes in the document; the server owns writing it. Read document-generation for the tool surface, the tagged value shapes, and the stated limits.

The rule that governs all four

A document must never fabricate to fill a blank.

Never infer, estimate, interpolate, or carry forward a stale value to complete a document. The server structurally cannot fabricate — it only renders tagged values — but you can, by inventing a plausible figure while assembling the request. That half of the discipline lives here and nowhere else.

If a device did not answer, send {"unavailable": "device did not answer"}. A change record that says "NOT AVAILABLE — device did not answer" is useful. One with a confident wrong number is worse than none, because a change advisory board will act on it and nobody will re-derive it.

1 · Change record (.docx)

"Generate a change record for CHG0012345 with the current state of fgt-01."

Feed it from: servicenow-change-workflow for the CR (read-only — this composition never creates or updates a ticket), plus fortigate-ops / multivendor-cli / pyats for device state.

Shape:

| Section | Block | Notes | |---|---|---| | Change details | keyvalue | CR number, state, requester, window, risk — each tagged with src: servicenow_get_change | | Pre-change state | keyvalue + table | Real device output, tagged per device | | Topology | image | Only if a diagram skill already produced one | | Rollback | paragraph | Narrative — put no figures here |

If the CR does not exist or is not approved, say so and stop. Do not produce a document with an invented CR — the document would outlive the conversation that knew it was a placeholder.

If ServiceNow is not configured, you may still produce the device half, but state in the response that the CR half was hand-supplied and unverified.

2 · Interface / config audit workbook (.xlsx)

"Build an interface audit spreadsheet for all my FortiGates."

Feed it from: fgt_list_interfaces, multivendor-device-query, pyats — whatever actually reached the devices.

Non-negotiables:

• Administrative and operational state go in separate columns. A merged status column is refused by the server. An interface can be admin-up with no carrier; collapsing them tells the auditor traffic is passing when nothing is. This is the distinction spec 080's completion established after NetClaw itself reported the conflation on a real FortiGate.
• A device that failed goes in failed_rows, never omitted. A shorter spreadsheet reads as a smaller estate, which is a false statement about the network. The server renders failures as marked rows and reports attempted / returned / failed in a banner.
• Device descriptions are untrusted text; the server writes them as literal text so a leading = cannot become a live formula. You do not need to sanitise anything.

3 · Executive summary deck (.pptx)

"Make an exec deck from the posture review, with the topology diagram."

Feed it from: findings other NetClaw skills produced, and a diagram file an existing diagram skill already generated.

Shape: a bullets slide for what was found, figure slides for the numbers behind it, an image slide for the diagram, and the auto-appended Sources slide.

• Give every summary slide a detail_ref pointing at the detail slide or the Sources slide. A bare summary claim gets a caveat, and rightly — an executive reading "everything is fine" deserves to know where that came from.
• Do not draw the diagram. Run drawio-diagram, markmap-viz, uml-diagram or threejs-network-viz first, then pass its output path and src. A path outside the workspace output directory is refused.
• Sources appear in a visible box on the slide, not in speaker notes — notes are invisible in presentation and print.

4 · Fill a required PDF form

"What fields does audit-response.pdf have?" → "Fill it from the CR and the device state."

1. Always pdf_inspect_form first. It returns the real field names. Never guess them.
2. Map tagged values onto those exact names.
3. Read back unfilled and unmatched and tell the operator both: which fields they must complete by hand, and which of their values matched nothing.

A field with no data is left genuinely empty. Never fill one to make the form look complete — an audit response form is precisely where an invented answer does the most damage.

Tell the operator the one limitation: a filled form carries no Sources section, because it is their document and adding a page would alter it. Provenance for a fill lives in the tool response and the GAIT record.

Boundaries

| Want to… | Use | |---|---| | Draw a diagram | drawio-diagram, markmap-viz, uml-diagram, threejs-network-viz — embedded here, never redrawn | | Read a document into the knowledge base | rag-mcp (feature 062) — it reads these formats, this writes them | | Create, update or close a change record | servicenow-change-workflow — this renders a document from one and writes no ticket | | Send the document | slack-report-delivery, webex-report-delivery — writing the file is in scope, sending it is a separate, outward-facing action | | Understand the tool surface | document-generation |

Before you hand anything over

• Read the outcome. written_with_gaps means the document is incomplete — say which parts, do not present it as finished.
• Give the path. The operator has to find the file.
• Say what is unverified. If half the data was hand-supplied because a system was unconfigured, that belongs in your reply, not just in your head.