Format Specifications

Guidelines for defining input/output/validation for atomic tasks. Apply when CheckAtomicity returns atomic=true.

Input Spec

{
  "description": "Human-readable description of what the task consumes",
  "artifacts": ["artifact_from_task_1", "artifact_from_task_2"],
  "parameters": ["optional_param_1"]
}

• artifacts: List artifact names or types from dependency tasks. Reference by task_id or semantic name (e.g. task_1.output, search_config).
• parameters: Optional explicit params (e.g. comparison_scope, target_audience). Omit if none.
• description: What the task needs to start. Be specific. For root-level tasks with no deps, use "Parent scope, idea, or plan context".

Output Spec

{
  "description": "What the task produces",
  "artifact": "output_artifact_name",
  "format": "JSON | Markdown | document | table"
}

• artifact: Name/type of produced artifact. Used by downstream tasks. Use consistent naming (e.g. synthesis_report, comparison_table).
• format: JSON (structured), Markdown (document), document (generic), table (tabular). For JSON, specify schema when known: JSON: { key: type }.
• description: Clear statement of deliverable.

Validation Spec

{
  "description": "What to validate",
  "criteria": [
    "Output must contain keys X, Y",
    "All sources must be cited",
    "Table has columns A, B, C"
  ],
  "optionalChecks": ["Optional: style consistency"]
}

• criteria: Concrete, checkable rules. Validator can verify without subjective judgment.
• optionalChecks: Nice-to-have; do not fail validation if missing.
• Aligned: Criteria must match output format (e.g. JSON schema for JSON; section names for Markdown).

Format-Specific Examples

JSON Output

{
  "output": {
    "artifact": "search_config",
    "format": "JSON: { keywords: string[], databases: string[] }"
  },
  "validation": {
    "criteria": [
      "Output is valid JSON",
      "keywords is non-empty array",
      "databases lists at least one valid database"
    ]
  }
}

Markdown Output

Generic:

{
  "output": {
    "artifact": "synthesis_report",
    "format": "Markdown document"
  },
  "validation": {
    "criteria": [
      "Document has ## Summary section",
      "Document has ## Findings section"
    ]
  }
}

Research/Comparison Report (add citation criteria):

{
  "output": {
    "artifact": "research_report",
    "format": "Markdown document"
  },
  "validation": {
    "criteria": [
      "Document has ## Summary section",
      "Document has ## References section",
      "References section is non-empty"
    ],
    "optionalChecks": ["Quantitative claims include inline source attribution"]
  }
}

Table Output

{
  "output": {
    "artifact": "comparison_table",
    "format": "Markdown table"
  },
  "validation": {
    "criteria": [
      "Output contains pipe-separated table",
      "Table has header row",
      "All comparison criteria from input are represented as rows"
    ]
  }
}

Artifact Naming Conventions

Task type	Suggested artifact name
Search config	search_config
Filtered list	filtered_papers, filtered_results
Synthesis report	synthesis_report, literature_review
Comparison	comparison_report, comparison_table
Experiment results	experiment_results, benchmark_data
Analysis	analysis_report, findings

Research Report Output (Citation Requirements)

When the task produces a research report, comparison report, or synthesis document (e.g. "调研报告", "对比报告", "综合分析"), add validation criteria for source attribution:

"validation": {
  "criteria": [
    "Document has ## References section",
    "References section is non-empty"
  ],
  "optionalChecks": ["Quantitative claims include inline source attribution"]
}

This ensures reports include citations and a References section, improving credibility.

Anti-Patterns

• Vague criteria: "output should be good" → use concrete checks
• Subjective criteria: "writing quality" → use structural or content rules
• Mismatched format: JSON output with "must have Introduction" → align with format
• Missing artifacts: Task has dependencies but artifacts list is empty → list what each dep produces
• Over-specifying: Too many optionalChecks → keep 1–3 optional; rest in criteria