Fixed linebreaks
Cleanup Pass excluded fields to the schema builder directly
This commit is contained in:
Fahad
@@ -80,10 +80,6 @@ CONSENSUS_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS = {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class ModelConfig(dict):
|
||||
"""Model configuration for consensus workflow"""
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class ConsensusRequest(WorkflowRequest):
|
||||
"""Request model for consensus workflow steps"""
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -95,7 +91,7 @@ class ConsensusRequest(WorkflowRequest):
|
||||
|
||||
# Investigation tracking fields
|
||||
findings: str = Field(..., description=CONSENSUS_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS["findings"])
|
||||
confidence: str | None = Field("exploring", exclude=True) # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
confidence: str = Field(default="exploring", exclude=True, description="Not used")
|
||||
|
||||
# Consensus-specific fields (only needed in step 1)
|
||||
models: list[dict] | None = Field(None, description=CONSENSUS_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS["models"])
|
||||
@@ -114,8 +110,10 @@ class ConsensusRequest(WorkflowRequest):
|
||||
description=CONSENSUS_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS["model_responses"],
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
# Optional images for visual debugging
|
||||
images: list[str] | None = Field(default=None, description=CONSENSUS_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS["images"])
|
||||
|
||||
# Override inherited fields to exclude them from schema
|
||||
model: str | None = Field(default=None, exclude=True) # Consensus uses 'models' field instead
|
||||
temperature: float | None = Field(default=None, exclude=True)
|
||||
thinking_mode: str | None = Field(default=None, exclude=True)
|
||||
use_websearch: bool | None = Field(default=None, exclude=True)
|
||||
@@ -126,7 +124,6 @@ class ConsensusRequest(WorkflowRequest):
|
||||
issues_found: list[dict] | None = Field(default_factory=list, exclude=True)
|
||||
hypothesis: str | None = Field(None, exclude=True)
|
||||
backtrack_from_step: int | None = Field(None, exclude=True)
|
||||
images: list[str] | None = Field(default_factory=list) # Enable images for consensus workflow
|
||||
|
||||
@model_validator(mode="after")
|
||||
def validate_step_one_requirements(self):
|
||||
@@ -174,19 +171,19 @@ class ConsensusTool(WorkflowTool):
|
||||
def get_description(self) -> str:
|
||||
return (
|
||||
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSENSUS WORKFLOW - Step-by-step multi-model consensus with structured analysis. "
|
||||
"This tool guides you through a systematic process where you:\\n\\n"
|
||||
"1. Start with step 1: provide your own neutral analysis of the proposal\\n"
|
||||
"2. The tool will then consult each specified model one by one\\n"
|
||||
"3. You'll receive each model's response in subsequent steps\\n"
|
||||
"4. Track and synthesize perspectives as they accumulate\\n"
|
||||
"5. Final step: present comprehensive consensus and recommendations\\n\\n"
|
||||
"IMPORTANT: This workflow enforces sequential model consultation:\\n"
|
||||
"- Step 1 is always your independent analysis\\n"
|
||||
"- Each subsequent step processes one model response\\n"
|
||||
"- Total steps = number of models (each step includes consultation + response)\\n"
|
||||
"- Models can have stances (for/against/neutral) for structured debate\\n"
|
||||
"- Same model can be used multiple times with different stances\\n"
|
||||
"- Each model + stance combination must be unique\\n\\n"
|
||||
"This tool guides you through a systematic process where you:\n\n"
|
||||
"1. Start with step 1: provide your own neutral analysis of the proposal\n"
|
||||
"2. The tool will then consult each specified model one by one\n"
|
||||
"3. You'll receive each model's response in subsequent steps\n"
|
||||
"4. Track and synthesize perspectives as they accumulate\n"
|
||||
"5. Final step: present comprehensive consensus and recommendations\n\n"
|
||||
"IMPORTANT: This workflow enforces sequential model consultation:\n"
|
||||
"- Step 1 is always your independent analysis\n"
|
||||
"- Each subsequent step processes one model response\n"
|
||||
"- Total steps = number of models (each step includes consultation + response)\n"
|
||||
"- Models can have stances (for/against/neutral) for structured debate\n"
|
||||
"- Same model can be used multiple times with different stances\n"
|
||||
"- Each model + stance combination must be unique\n\n"
|
||||
"Perfect for: complex decisions, architectural choices, feature proposals, "
|
||||
"technology evaluations, strategic planning."
|
||||
)
|
||||
@@ -230,8 +227,9 @@ of the evidence, even when it strongly points in one direction.""",
|
||||
"""Generate input schema for consensus workflow."""
|
||||
from .workflow.schema_builders import WorkflowSchemaBuilder
|
||||
|
||||
# Consensus workflow-specific field overrides
|
||||
# Consensus tool-specific field definitions
|
||||
consensus_field_overrides = {
|
||||
# Override standard workflow fields that need consensus-specific descriptions
|
||||
"step": {
|
||||
"type": "string",
|
||||
"description": CONSENSUS_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS["step"],
|
||||
@@ -259,6 +257,7 @@ of the evidence, even when it strongly points in one direction.""",
|
||||
"items": {"type": "string"},
|
||||
"description": CONSENSUS_WORKFLOW_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS["relevant_files"],
|
||||
},
|
||||
# consensus-specific fields (not in base workflow)
|
||||
"models": {
|
||||
"type": "array",
|
||||
"items": {
|
||||
@@ -289,31 +288,33 @@ of the evidence, even when it strongly points in one direction.""",
|
||||
},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
# Build schema without standard workflow fields we don't use
|
||||
# Define excluded fields for consensus workflow
|
||||
excluded_workflow_fields = [
|
||||
"files_checked", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"relevant_context", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"issues_found", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"hypothesis", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"backtrack_from_step", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"confidence", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
excluded_common_fields = [
|
||||
"model", # Consensus uses 'models' field instead
|
||||
"temperature", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"thinking_mode", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"use_websearch", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
# Build schema with proper field exclusion
|
||||
# Note: We don't pass model_field_schema because consensus uses 'models' instead of 'model'
|
||||
schema = WorkflowSchemaBuilder.build_schema(
|
||||
tool_specific_fields=consensus_field_overrides,
|
||||
model_field_schema=self.get_model_field_schema(),
|
||||
auto_mode=self.is_effective_auto_mode(),
|
||||
tool_name=self.get_name(),
|
||||
excluded_workflow_fields=excluded_workflow_fields,
|
||||
excluded_common_fields=excluded_common_fields,
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
# Remove unused workflow fields
|
||||
if "properties" in schema:
|
||||
for field in [
|
||||
"files_checked",
|
||||
"relevant_context",
|
||||
"issues_found",
|
||||
"hypothesis",
|
||||
"backtrack_from_step",
|
||||
"confidence", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"model", # Consensus uses 'models' field instead
|
||||
"temperature", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"thinking_mode", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"use_websearch", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
"relevant_files", # Not used in consensus workflow
|
||||
]:
|
||||
schema["properties"].pop(field, None)
|
||||
|
||||
return schema
|
||||
|
||||
def get_required_actions(
|
||||
@@ -357,6 +358,17 @@ of the evidence, even when it strongly points in one direction.""",
|
||||
"""Consensus workflow handles its own model consultations."""
|
||||
return False
|
||||
|
||||
def requires_model(self) -> bool:
|
||||
"""
|
||||
Consensus tool doesn't require model resolution at the MCP boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
Uses it's own set of models
|
||||
|
||||
Returns:
|
||||
bool: False
|
||||
"""
|
||||
return False
|
||||
|
||||
# Hook method overrides for consensus-specific behavior
|
||||
|
||||
def prepare_step_data(self, request) -> dict:
|
||||
@@ -601,9 +613,7 @@ YOUR SUPPORTIVE ANALYSIS SHOULD:
|
||||
- Suggest optimizations that enhance value
|
||||
- Present realistic implementation pathways
|
||||
|
||||
Remember: Being "for" means finding the BEST possible version of the idea IF it has merit, not blindly supporting bad """
|
||||
"ideas."
|
||||
"",
|
||||
Remember: Being "for" means finding the BEST possible version of the idea IF it has merit, not blindly supporting bad ideas.""",
|
||||
"against": """CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE WITH RESPONSIBILITY
|
||||
|
||||
You are tasked with critiquing this proposal, but with ESSENTIAL BOUNDARIES:
|
||||
@@ -627,9 +637,7 @@ YOUR CRITICAL ANALYSIS SHOULD:
|
||||
- Highlight potential negative consequences
|
||||
- Question assumptions that may be flawed
|
||||
|
||||
Remember: Being "against" means rigorous scrutiny to ensure quality, not undermining good ideas that deserve """
|
||||
"support."
|
||||
"",
|
||||
Remember: Being "against" means rigorous scrutiny to ensure quality, not undermining good ideas that deserve support.""",
|
||||
"neutral": """BALANCED PERSPECTIVE
|
||||
|
||||
Provide objective analysis considering both positive and negative aspects. However, if there is overwhelming evidence
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user