feat: created new graph-based deep-research agent
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
|
||||
name: deep-research
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Deep web research workflow. Plans an investigation, decomposes it
|
||||
into sub-questions researched in parallel, grounds the work in a
|
||||
local knowledge corpus, vets the credibility of cited sources, runs
|
||||
a reflexion self-critique loop to revise weak or incomplete findings,
|
||||
delegates the final write-up to a focused sub-agent, checks that the
|
||||
cited sources are reachable, and gates the result behind human
|
||||
approval. A reviewer's free-form feedback at the approval step feeds
|
||||
back into another research pass.
|
||||
|
||||
This is the canonical Loki graph-agent reference: it exercises every
|
||||
node type (script, llm, rag, map, agent, input, approval, end) and
|
||||
both static fan-out and dynamic map fan-out.
|
||||
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
|
||||
temperature: 0.0
|
||||
|
||||
global_tools:
|
||||
- web_search_loki.sh
|
||||
- fetch_url_via_curl.sh
|
||||
- search_arxiv.sh
|
||||
|
||||
mcp_servers:
|
||||
- ddg-search
|
||||
|
||||
conversation_starters:
|
||||
- "How does HTTP/3 differ from HTTP/2?"
|
||||
- "Summarize recent advances in solid-state battery chemistry"
|
||||
|
||||
settings:
|
||||
max_loop_iterations: 40
|
||||
log_state_snapshots: false
|
||||
validate_before_run: true
|
||||
max_concurrency: 4
|
||||
|
||||
initial_state:
|
||||
research_feedback: ""
|
||||
research_attempts: 0
|
||||
local_context: ""
|
||||
local_sources: ""
|
||||
|
||||
start: parse_request
|
||||
|
||||
nodes:
|
||||
|
||||
parse_request:
|
||||
id: parse_request
|
||||
type: script
|
||||
script: scripts/parse_request.py
|
||||
next: bootstrap_research
|
||||
|
||||
ask_topic:
|
||||
id: ask_topic
|
||||
type: input
|
||||
question: "What would you like me to research?"
|
||||
validation: "len(input) > 0"
|
||||
state_updates:
|
||||
topic: "{{input}}"
|
||||
next: bootstrap_research
|
||||
|
||||
bootstrap_research:
|
||||
id: bootstrap_research
|
||||
type: script
|
||||
script: scripts/bootstrap_research.py
|
||||
next: [plan, knowledge_lookup]
|
||||
|
||||
plan:
|
||||
id: plan
|
||||
type: llm
|
||||
instructions: |
|
||||
You are a research planner. Given a topic, produce a focused
|
||||
research plan and decompose it into 3-5 specific sub-questions
|
||||
that can each be researched independently in parallel.
|
||||
|
||||
The plan is a short narrative naming the key questions and the
|
||||
kinds of sources that would be authoritative. The sub-questions
|
||||
are precise, self-contained queries (each one is sent on its own
|
||||
to a separate research worker, so they must be answerable
|
||||
without each other's context).
|
||||
prompt: "Research topic: {{topic}}"
|
||||
tools: []
|
||||
output_schema:
|
||||
type: object
|
||||
properties:
|
||||
research_plan:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: A short plan narrative.
|
||||
questions:
|
||||
type: array
|
||||
items: { type: string }
|
||||
minItems: 1
|
||||
maxItems: 6
|
||||
description: 3-5 specific, self-contained sub-questions.
|
||||
required: [research_plan, questions]
|
||||
next: research_each_question
|
||||
|
||||
knowledge_lookup:
|
||||
id: knowledge_lookup
|
||||
type: rag
|
||||
documents:
|
||||
- ./knowledge/
|
||||
query: "{{topic}}"
|
||||
top_k: 6
|
||||
embedding_model: openai:text-embedding-3-small
|
||||
chunk_size: 1000
|
||||
chunk_overlap: 100
|
||||
state_updates:
|
||||
local_context: "{{output.context}}"
|
||||
local_sources: "{{output.sources}}"
|
||||
next: research_each_question
|
||||
|
||||
research_each_question:
|
||||
id: research_each_question
|
||||
type: map
|
||||
over: "{{questions}}"
|
||||
as: question
|
||||
branch: research_one_question
|
||||
collect_into: question_findings
|
||||
max_concurrency: 3
|
||||
next: combine_findings
|
||||
|
||||
research_one_question:
|
||||
id: research_one_question
|
||||
type: llm
|
||||
instructions: |
|
||||
You are a web research assistant. Investigate the SINGLE question
|
||||
given to you using your tools: search the web, fetch and read
|
||||
pages, and search arXiv for academic sources.
|
||||
|
||||
Rules:
|
||||
- Every factual claim must be backed by a real source you
|
||||
actually retrieved. Never fabricate URLs, page titles,
|
||||
authors, or DOIs.
|
||||
- Prefer primary and authoritative sources over aggregators.
|
||||
- Where sources disagree, report the disagreement rather than
|
||||
papering over it.
|
||||
- Put the URL (or DOI) inline next to each claim it supports.
|
||||
|
||||
Return organized findings in plain text. Do not include
|
||||
meta-commentary about the process.
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
Research question: {{question}}
|
||||
|
||||
Local context that may help:
|
||||
{{local_context}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{research_feedback}}
|
||||
tools:
|
||||
- web_search_loki
|
||||
- fetch_url_via_curl
|
||||
- search_arxiv
|
||||
- mcp:ddg-search
|
||||
max_iterations: 10
|
||||
max_attempts: 2
|
||||
temperature: 0.1
|
||||
|
||||
combine_findings:
|
||||
id: combine_findings
|
||||
type: script
|
||||
script: scripts/combine_findings.py
|
||||
next: vet_sources
|
||||
|
||||
vet_sources:
|
||||
id: vet_sources
|
||||
type: llm
|
||||
instructions: |
|
||||
You assess the credibility of the sources cited in a set of
|
||||
research findings. For every distinct source URL in the findings,
|
||||
call the `classify_source` tool to get its credibility tier. Then
|
||||
summarize: which claims rest on HIGH-credibility sources, and
|
||||
which rest on PREPRINT or UNVERIFIED sources and so need
|
||||
corroboration. Do NOT do any new research -- assess only what is
|
||||
already cited.
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
Findings to assess:
|
||||
{{findings}}
|
||||
tools:
|
||||
- classify_source
|
||||
max_iterations: 15
|
||||
state_updates:
|
||||
source_assessment: "{{output}}"
|
||||
next: critique
|
||||
|
||||
critique:
|
||||
id: critique
|
||||
type: llm
|
||||
instructions: |
|
||||
You are a meticulous research reviewer. Judge whether the
|
||||
findings below are good enough to synthesize a complete,
|
||||
well-supported report that answers the research plan.
|
||||
|
||||
Mark the findings REVISE if ANY of these hold:
|
||||
- A research-plan question is unanswered or only weakly
|
||||
addressed.
|
||||
- A factual claim has no source, or cites a source that looks
|
||||
fabricated.
|
||||
- The findings lean on a single source where corroboration is
|
||||
needed.
|
||||
- A key claim rests only on a PREPRINT or UNVERIFIED source,
|
||||
per the source credibility assessment below.
|
||||
- An obvious counter-perspective or recent development is
|
||||
missing.
|
||||
Otherwise mark them PASS.
|
||||
|
||||
Respond in EXACTLY this format, nothing else:
|
||||
|
||||
VERDICT: <PASS or REVISE>
|
||||
FEEDBACK: <if REVISE, be specific and actionable -- name the gaps
|
||||
and what kind of source would close them; if PASS, write "none">
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
Research plan:
|
||||
{{research_plan}}
|
||||
|
||||
Findings under review:
|
||||
{{findings}}
|
||||
|
||||
Source credibility assessment:
|
||||
{{source_assessment}}
|
||||
tools: []
|
||||
state_updates:
|
||||
critique: "{{output}}"
|
||||
next: reflexion_gate
|
||||
|
||||
reflexion_gate:
|
||||
id: reflexion_gate
|
||||
type: script
|
||||
script: scripts/reflexion_gate.py
|
||||
next: synthesize
|
||||
|
||||
synthesize:
|
||||
id: synthesize
|
||||
type: agent
|
||||
agent: report-writer
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
Research topic: {{topic}}
|
||||
|
||||
Findings (organized by sub-question, with inline citations):
|
||||
{{findings}}
|
||||
|
||||
Source credibility assessment:
|
||||
{{source_assessment}}
|
||||
|
||||
Produce the final report following your instructions.
|
||||
timeout: 300
|
||||
state_updates:
|
||||
report: "{{output}}"
|
||||
next: verify_sources
|
||||
|
||||
verify_sources:
|
||||
id: verify_sources
|
||||
type: script
|
||||
script: scripts/verify_sources.py
|
||||
next: approve
|
||||
|
||||
approve:
|
||||
id: approve
|
||||
type: approval
|
||||
question: |
|
||||
Research report on: {{topic}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{report}}
|
||||
|
||||
----
|
||||
{{source_check}}
|
||||
----
|
||||
|
||||
Accept this report? Pick "accept" or "reject", or type specific
|
||||
feedback to send the research back for another pass.
|
||||
options:
|
||||
- "accept"
|
||||
- "reject"
|
||||
routes:
|
||||
"accept": end_accepted
|
||||
"reject": end_rejected
|
||||
on_other: incorporate_feedback
|
||||
state_updates:
|
||||
decision: "{{choice}}"
|
||||
|
||||
incorporate_feedback:
|
||||
id: incorporate_feedback
|
||||
type: script
|
||||
script: scripts/incorporate_feedback.py
|
||||
|
||||
end_accepted:
|
||||
id: end_accepted
|
||||
type: end
|
||||
output: "{{report}}"
|
||||
|
||||
end_rejected:
|
||||
id: end_rejected
|
||||
type: end
|
||||
output: "Research on '{{topic}}' was rejected and discarded."
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user