fix: generic agent prompt issue#193
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Roopan-Microsoft
approved these changes
May 15, 2025
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.5.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
blessing-msft
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2025
fix: generic agent prompt issue
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Purpose
This pull request updates the
_get_templatemethod inplanner_agent.pyto enhance the clarity and completeness of task planning. The changes focus on improving how missing information is identified and handled when generating a plan.Improvements to task planning:
_get_templateinplanner_agent.pyto explicitly list the types of required input (e.g., input data, questions, referenced materials) that should be considered when identifying missing information.human_clarification_requestfield if required input is missing, even if not explicitly mentioned.Does this introduce a breaking change?