Subchapter 7.4
references/examples/service-desk.mdMarkdown3 KBView on GitHub
This example shows how reusable project knowledge grows across Tasks. It is not a template for one fixed service-desk scenario.
Task 1 asks an agent to resolve a support request with account, requester,
entitlement, owner, and history data. Its collocated Task.md keeps the exact
request, focal records, accepted result, and Verifier criteria.
The audit proves reusable project facts:
search_cases, get_case, and update_case;Create .agents/skills/service-desk-world/SKILL.md. Add only these proven
facts, their source paths, and routes to any reusable script.
Task 2 uses the same product but tests a different capability: it requires the agent to connect a stale knowledge article, a recent incident, and a customer message before making an update.
The second audit finds more reusable knowledge:
effective_at, not insertion order;Add a short reference for the data relationships and a reusable fixture
validator only because two distinct Tasks now use them. Update SKILL.md to
route agents to those items.
.agents/skills/service-desk-world/
├── SKILL.md
├── references/
│ └── data-and-verification.md
└── scripts/
└── validate_fixture.pyIts root skill states when the knowledge applies and gives exact project paths, commands, state rules, and known limits. It can contain project-specific Task, Environment, data, Verifier, Harbor, and calibration guidance. It does not say only “follow eval-engineering,” and it does not copy broad guidance without a project-specific adaptation.
The skill does not include either Task’s request, selected records, expected answer, or exact rubric. Those stay with each Task. It also does not add empty folders, a catalog, a manifest, or a file per concept. New content must reduce rediscovery or prevent a demonstrated defect in another Task.
Task 3 tests whether the World Skill works. A new author should be able to find the correct tool contract, create relationship-complete data, reset state, and reuse the raw-state Verifier boundary without studying Tasks 1 and 2 in full. If a rule fails on Task 3, narrow or correct it and cite the new evidence.