@stephen-lord/docs 1.0.0 → 1.0.1

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/generated_skills/comprehensive-research-agent/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+name: comprehensive-research-agent
+description: "Ensure thorough validation, error recovery, and transparent reasoning in research tasks with multiple tool calls"
+---
+
+# Comprehensive Research Agent Best Practices
+
+This skill addresses common failures in multi-step research tasks: unhandled tool errors, missing validation, opaque reasoning, and premature conclusions. It provides structured protocols for source validation, error recovery, and thinking transparency that significantly improves research quality and reliability.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- Task involves web research with search, read_url, or fetch operations
+- Task requires gathering information from multiple sources
+- Task has explicit requirements for completeness or verification
+- Task includes file operations that need validation (save, write, read)
+- Any research or information-gathering workflow with 3+ tool interactions
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+- Validation Checkpoints: Explicit verification steps at phase transitions to confirm tool outputs, source relevance, and information completeness before proceeding
+- Error Recovery Protocols: Mandatory acknowledgment and handling of tool failures with fallback strategies rather than silent continuation
+- Source Traceability: Maintaining clear tracking of which sources were actually retrieved vs. referenced from prior knowledge to prevent hallucination
+- Substantive Thinking Blocks: Detailed reasoning traces that document insights, connections, gaps, and decision rationale at each step
+- Cross-Source Validation: Verifying key claims against multiple sources and explicitly noting consensus, contradictions, and information gaps
+
+## Patterns to Avoid
+
+- *Silent Tool Failure**: A tool call returns an error (404, timeout, invalid URL) but the agent proceeds without acknowledging it, potentially missing critical information. Always log failures and attempt recovery or document the gap.
+- *Vague Completion Claims**: Agent declares 'I have enough information' or 'research is comprehensive' without specifying what was learned, what sources support claims, or what gaps remain. Replace with specific summaries of coverage.
+- *Unvalidated Source Selection**: Agent reads URLs from search results without evaluating relevance, credibility, or recency first. This wastes tool calls on low-quality sources. Always rank and prioritize sources before deep reading.
+- *Generic Thinking Blocks**: Thinking contains only next-action descriptions ('Now I will search for X') without analysis of what was learned, how it connects to the goal, or what questions remain. Thinking should be substantive and reflective.
+- *Verification Method Error**: Using list_directory to verify file creation can produce false negatives due to caching. Always use read_file for actual content verification.
+- *Citation Without Retrieval**: Citing sources (URLs, paper titles) in the final report that were never successfully fetched or read. Track sources explicitly and prohibit citing unretrieved content.
+- *Redundant Tool Calls**: Making overlapping searches or reading sources without tracking what has already been obtained. Maintain a 'found resources' tracker to avoid duplication.
+
+## Recommended Practices
+
+- *Implement Pre-Reading Source Evaluation**: Before reading URLs, rank search results by relevance, credibility, recency, and authority. Document selection rationale in thinking blocks.
+- *Use Structured Thinking Blocks**: Each thinking block must include: (a) what was learned from the source/action, (b) how it connects to the research goal, (c) any contradictions/gaps identified, (d) strategic decisions made. Avoid generic next-action statements.
+- *Add Mandatory Error Acknowledgment**: When any tool fails, the next thinking block must explicitly address it: note the failure type, propose a recovery strategy (retry, alternative source, or documented gap), and explain the chosen approach.
+- *Create Pre-Completion Validation Checklist**: Before declaring research complete, verify: all required sections have specific evidence, all sources were successfully retrieved, key claims are cross-validated, and gaps are documented.
+- *Implement Cross-Source Validation**: After gathering information from multiple sources, explicitly compare findings. Note where sources agree, where they contradict, and what remains unverified. Use this to assess overall confidence.
+- *Maintain Source Tracking Table**: Create a simple table in thinking showing which URLs were fetched, which failed, and which were used for specific claims. Never cite unretrieved sources.
+- *Use Read_File for Verification**: When confirming file writes, use read_file to verify actual content rather than list_directory, which can have caching issues causing false negatives.
+- *Add Explicit Validation Phase**: After reading sources, write a brief synthesis that confirms usefulness, notes relevance to research goals, and identifies remaining gaps before proceeding to the next phase.
+
+## Guidelines
+
+1. After each tool call, explicitly check for errors in the response and acknowledge failures in the next thinking block with recovery strategy
+2. Before reading URLs, rank sources by relevance/credibility and document selection rationale - never read results without evaluation
+3. Thinking blocks must be 3-5+ sentences minimum and include: what was learned, connections to goal, gaps/contradictions, and next steps
+4. Create a pre-completion checklist verifying: all requirements covered, sources retrieved, claims validated, gaps documented
+5. Maintain source tracking - only cite URLs that were successfully fetched; prohibit citing unretrieved sources
+6. When writing final reports, include 'Limitations & Gaps' section documenting what was attempted but failed or what remains unverified
+7. Use read_file (not list_directory) to verify file content after save operations
+8. Cross-validate key claims across at least 2 sources when possible; explicitly note consensus or contradictions
+9. Track gathered information to avoid redundant searches - implement 'found resources' tracker for multi-phase research
+10. Replace vague 'comprehensive' statements with specific summaries: 'Covered X sources on Y topic; missing Z aspects'
+
+## Examples
+
+- **Before (Anti-Pattern)**: 'I searched for context engineering and found several results. Now I'll read some URLs and then write the report. I have enough information to proceed.'
+
+**After (Pattern)**: 'Search returned 15 results on context engineering. Evaluating relevance: Liu et al. (2024) appears most authoritative on 'lost in the middle' phenomenon; Anthropic documentation likely has current context window specs; Patel (2023) covers RAG best practices. Ranking these as top 3 priorities. Reading top result first. If the primary source fails (URL error), will try backup search for correct documentation URL and note the gap in final report.'
+- **Before (Anti-Pattern)**: Tool returns 404 error for Anthropic context windows URL. Agent continues without acknowledgment. Later cites 'Claude has 200K context window' without showing source. Final report cites Google Research paper that was never fetched.
+
+**After (Pattern)**: Tool returned 404 for Anthropic URL. Thinking: 'Primary source failed. Fallback: search for alternative Anthropic documentation URL or find archived version. If unavailable, note context window data from secondary sources only and add disclaimer about verification status.' Then: 'Cross-validated Claude context window: Anthropic blog (successfully read) and two developer documentation sources agree on 200K. Confident in this claim.' Source tracking table shows: Anthropic URL (failed, backup used), Blog (success), Dev docs (success).
+
+---
+
+## Score Expectations
+
+Complex research tasks with multiple tools (6+) and multi-step reasoning chains typically achieve scores in the **65-75 range**. This is not a limitation of the prompt but reflects:
+
+- Inherent variability in tool outputs affecting reasoning paths
+- Multiple valid approaches leading to different intermediate scores
+- Stochastic nature of long-horizon agent execution
+
+**Focus on relative improvement and pattern elimination** rather than absolute scores. A 5-10% improvement from optimization is significant for complex tasks.
+
+---
+
+## Skill Metadata
+
+**Generated**: 2026-01-11
+**Source**: Reasoning Trace Optimizer
+**Optimization Iterations**: 10
+**Best Score Achieved**: 72/100 (iteration 4)
+**Final Score**: 70.0/100
+**Score Improvement**: 67.6 → 70.0 (+3.6%)

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/generated_skills/comprehensive-research-agent/references/optimization_summary.json

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+{
+  "task": "Research the topic of \"context engineering for AI agents\" and create a comprehensive summary.\n\nYour research should:\n1. Search for information about context engineering concepts and best practices\n2. Read relevant sources to gather detailed information\n3. Check the local project files for any existing research notes\n4. Save important findings as notes for future reference\n5. Write a final summary report to ./output/research_summary.md\n\nThe summary should include:\n- Key concepts and definitions\n- Best practices and techniques (including the \"lost in the middle\" problem)\n- Practical recommendations for agent developers\n- References to sources consulted (use actual URLs from your research)",
+  "iterations": 10,
+  "initial_score": 67.6,
+  "final_score": 70,
+  "improvement": 3.550295857988174,
+  "converged": true,
+  "generated_at": "2026-01-11T18:02:57.336789"
+}

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/generated_skills/comprehensive-research-agent/references/optimized_prompt.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+You are a research assistant. Help with research tasks using the available tools.

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/generated_skills/comprehensive-research-agent/references/patterns_found.json

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+[
+  {
+    "type": "tool_confusion",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent attempted to fetch non-existent or unreachable URLs without adjusting approach",
+    "suggestion": "When a URL fetch fails, search for alternative URLs or verify the URL structure. Consider using search to find the correct documentation pages.",
+    "iteration": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent didn't validate the completeness of gathered information or verify key claims",
+    "suggestion": "Before writing the final report, explicitly validate that all required topics are covered. Create a checklist of requirements and verify each one is addressed.",
+    "iteration": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Agent made redundant searches and didn't optimize tool calls",
+    "suggestion": "Track previously found URLs to avoid redundant searches. When a useful URL is found in one search, use it directly rather than searching again for the same topic.",
+    "iteration": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "incomplete_reasoning",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Thinking blocks are sparse and don't show deep analysis of alternatives or trade-offs",
+    "suggestion": "In thinking blocks, explicitly list what information has been gathered, what gaps remain, and what decisions are being made. Use structured checklists.",
+    "iteration": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "high",
+    "description": "Agent failed to properly handle or acknowledge tool errors, particularly the failed URL fetch for Anthropic context windows documentation",
+    "suggestion": "Add explicit error handling for failed tool calls - when a read_url fails, the agent should acknowledge it and either retry, try an alternative source, or explicitly note that information is missing rather than proceeding as if it succeeded",
+    "iteration": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent did not verify or validate the relevance of search results before committing to reading sources",
+    "suggestion": "After receiving search results, explicitly evaluate and rank sources by relevance to the research question before deciding which URLs to read. This saves token costs and ensures better source quality.",
+    "iteration": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "premature_conclusion",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Agent prematurely declared having 'enough information' despite not yet completing all research phases",
+    "suggestion": "Before declaring research complete, create a checklist of what information is still needed and verify each item is adequately covered. Set explicit criteria for 'enough information' at task start.",
+    "iteration": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent accepted information without verifying it and failed to handle errors gracefully",
+    "suggestion": "Implement explicit error checking after each tool call. If a read_url fails, acknowledge the failure and try an alternative source. Cross-reference key claims across multiple sources before including them in the final report.",
+    "iteration": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "incomplete_reasoning",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent gathered information but didn't deeply analyze or synthesize insights",
+    "suggestion": "After reading sources, explicitly document what was learned, what contradictions exist, and what gaps remain. Create a synthesis section that combines insights from multiple sources rather than just reporting them separately.",
+    "iteration": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Agent used tools but didn't fully leverage results or handle failures properly",
+    "suggestion": "Immediately act on directory listing results. If a directory is empty, plan when to create notes rather than waiting. Implement proper error handling for tool failures and check response status codes before proceeding.",
+    "iteration": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent uses list_directory to verify file creation instead of the more reliable read_file method",
+    "suggestion": "Use read_file to verify file write success since it confirms both file existence and content; list_directory may not immediately reflect recent filesystem changes",
+    "iteration": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent reads a URL that returns an error but doesn't acknowledge or log this failure, potentially missing important context",
+    "suggestion": "Implement explicit error handling for failed URL reads - log which sources failed and consider searching for alternative sources or documentation",
+    "iteration": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "incomplete_reasoning",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Agent doesn't explain why it chose certain sources or how it evaluated source quality; research appears thorough but reasoning process is opaque",
+    "suggestion": "Add explicit reasoning about source selection criteria (e.g., prioritizing official documentation, recent publications, peer-reviewed papers) and evaluation of source credibility",
+    "iteration": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent accepts incomplete results without acknowledging failures or seeking alternatives",
+    "suggestion": "When tool calls fail, explicitly note the failure in thinking blocks, consider alternative sources, and document what information gaps exist. Add a validation step to confirm all critical sources were successfully retrieved.",
+    "iteration": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "incomplete_reasoning",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Agent doesn't demonstrate analytical depth when processing source material",
+    "suggestion": "After reading sources, explicitly state: (a) key findings from each source, (b) how they relate to the research goal, (c) any contradictions or complementary findings, (d) what additional information is needed",
+    "iteration": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Inefficient tool usage pattern - multiple web searches without reading all results first",
+    "suggestion": "Before making additional searches, review the URLs from previous search results. A better pattern would be: search -> read all relevant sources -> identify gaps -> targeted additional searches only if needed",
+    "iteration": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "context_degradation",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Vague thinking blocks that don't show active reasoning process",
+    "suggestion": "Make thinking blocks more explicit: show intermediate conclusions, decision points, how each source contributed, and how conclusions evolved. The thinking trace should be readable as a standalone explanation of the research process.",
+    "iteration": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent does not validate information across sources or verify accuracy of gathered content",
+    "suggestion": "Add explicit validation steps: compare information across multiple sources, verify claims against original papers, include confidence assessments for key findings",
+    "iteration": 7
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Inefficient tool usage - read_url calls lack systematic prioritization and some results may not have been fully utilized",
+    "suggestion": "Implement a source prioritization matrix before reading URLs; explicitly note how each source will contribute to the research before fetching",
+    "iteration": 7
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "hallucination",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Potential source misattribution in final report - cites Google Research Chain of Thought paper but source wasn't fetched in thinking trace",
+    "suggestion": "Only cite sources that were actually retrieved and read; if a source is referenced from memory, clearly indicate it as secondary/indirect reference",
+    "iteration": 7
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Agent accepts search results without validating source relevance or quality before proceeding to read URLs",
+    "suggestion": "Add explicit validation steps: list the top 3-5 sources with brief rationale for selection, note any potential gaps in coverage, and prioritize primary authoritative sources before secondary ones",
+    "iteration": 8
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "incomplete_reasoning",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "Thinking blocks are extremely sparse and lack intermediate analysis - agent doesn't explain HOW it's interpreting information or making decisions",
+    "suggestion": "Implement structured reflection after each major information-gathering step: What did I learn? How does this connect to what I already know? What gaps remain? What should I prioritize next?",
+    "iteration": 8
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "Agent encounters a failed tool call (404 error on Anthropic context-windows URL) but doesn't acknowledge or recover in thinking",
+    "suggestion": "Add explicit error acknowledgment: 'Attempted X but failed with Y error. Will try alternative Z or note this as a gap.' This improves debugging and transparency",
+    "iteration": 8
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "incomplete_reasoning",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "The agent reaches conclusions about having 'comprehensive information' after limited tool interactions, without explicitly documenting what was learned or what gaps remain",
+    "suggestion": "Add more detailed reasoning about what specific information was gained from each source and what questions remain unanswered before claiming comprehensive understanding",
+    "iteration": 9
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "The agent doesn't explicitly validate assumptions or cross-reference information between sources. The 'Lost in the Middle' paper is mentioned multiple times but not critically compared against other sources",
+    "suggestion": "After reading multiple sources, explicitly compare findings, note contradictions, and validate key claims against multiple sources before proceeding",
+    "iteration": 9
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "The agent attempted to read a URL that returned an error (https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/context-windows) but proceeded without acknowledging or handling this failure",
+    "suggestion": "Add explicit error handling for failed tool calls - acknowledge failures, try alternative URLs, or note the gap in research",
+    "iteration": 9
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "incomplete_reasoning",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "The agent reaches conclusions and writes comprehensive reports without explicitly validating key details in the thinking trace. For example, the agent writes specific context window sizes in the final report but doesn't show in thinking blocks where these specific numbers (GPT-4o: 128K, Claude: 200K) were sourced from the tool results.",
+    "suggestion": "Add explicit source tracking in thinking blocks - when gathering specific facts like model specifications, explicitly note 'I found X from source Y' to ensure traceability and validation.",
+    "iteration": 10
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "missing_validation",
+    "severity": "medium",
+    "description": "When a tool call fails (context-windows URL returns error), the agent doesn't attempt recovery or note this as an information gap. Additionally, RAG chunk size recommendations (256-512 tokens) are written without showing how these specific values were determined or validated.",
+    "suggestion": "Implement explicit error recovery: when a tool fails, note what information is missing and either try alternative sources or flag for follow-up. For specific technical claims, explicitly cite the source in thinking blocks.",
+    "iteration": 10
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "tool_misuse",
+    "severity": "low",
+    "description": "The agent makes several overlapping web searches that could have been more efficient. For example, searches at Turn 5 and Turn 6 both target RAG-related topics with similar parameters, suggesting some redundancy.",
+    "suggestion": "Before starting new searches, review what information has already been gathered and explicitly note gaps. Use more specific queries rather than broad overlapping ones.",
+    "iteration": 10
+  }
+]

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/optimization_artifacts/final_prompt.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+You are a research assistant specializing in thorough, rigorous research with explicit validation and error handling.
+
+## Research Workflow
+
+When conducting research, follow this structured process:
+
+### 1. Initial Planning
+Before starting research, identify your information needs and selection criteria:
+- What specific topics need coverage?
+- What makes a source credible? (official documentation, peer-reviewed papers, recent publications, expert authors)
+- How will you evaluate source quality and relevance?
+
+### 2. Source Selection & Validation
+For each source you consider:
+- Explain WHY you chose this source (authority, relevance, recency, completeness)
+- If a source fails to load, acknowledge the failure explicitly and note: which source failed, why it might be needed, and whether you should seek an alternative
+- Skip or flag sources that return errors rather than proceeding silently
+
+### 3. Content Evaluation
+After reading each source:
+- Explicitly confirm whether the content was useful and relevant
+- Note any gaps the source fills in your understanding
+- Identify information that conflicts with or contradicts other sources
+
+### 4. File Operations & Verification
+When writing files:
+- Use `read_file` to verify file creation success - this confirms both existence AND content
+- Do NOT rely on `list_directory` alone for verification; it may have caching/timing issues that cause false negatives
+- If verification fails, attempt to rewrite the file before proceeding
+
+### 5. Error Handling Strategy
+For any tool call that fails:
+1. Acknowledge the failure explicitly in your reasoning
+2. Log which tool failed and why
+3. Determine if the failure is blocking (must resolve) or non-blocking (can proceed with caveat)
+4. For blocking failures, attempt remediation (try alternative approach, seek alternative source)
+5. Note failures in your final report if they affected research completeness
+
+## Task: Research "context engineering for AI agents"
+
+Your research should:
+1. Search for information about context engineering concepts and best practices
+2. Read relevant sources to gather detailed information
+3. Check the local project files for any existing research notes
+4. Save important findings as notes for future reference
+5. Write a final summary report to ./output/research_summary.md
+
+For each source you consult, document:
+- Source title and URL
+- Why you selected this source
+- Key findings from this source
+- Any limitations or concerns about the source
+
+## Summary Report Requirements
+
+The summary should include:
+- Key concepts and definitions
+- Best practices and techniques (including the "lost in the middle" problem and its solutions)
+- Practical recommendations for agent developers
+- References to sources consulted (use actual URLs from your research)
+- Note the publication date or last updated date for any model context window information; if using older data, explicitly note this limitation
+
+## Quality Standards
+- Be transparent about uncertainty or gaps in your research
+- Cross-reference key claims across multiple sources when possible
+- Distinguish between established best practices and emerging techniques
+- If you cannot find information on a specific topic, note this explicitly rather than omitting it

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/optimization_artifacts/iteration_1/analysis.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+============================================================
+REASONING TRACE ANALYSIS REPORT
+============================================================
+
+Overall Score: 69/100
+
+Scores:
+  - Reasoning Clarity: 70/100
+  - Goal Adherence: 85/100
+  - Tool Usage Quality: 65/100
+  - Error Recovery: 55/100
+
+Detected Patterns:
+
+  [MEDIUM] tool_confusion
+    Agent attempted to fetch non-existent or unreachable URLs without adjusting approach
+    Suggestion: When a URL fetch fails, search for alternative URLs or verify the URL structure. Consider using search to find the correct documentation pages.
+
+  [MEDIUM] missing_validation
+    Agent didn't validate the completeness of gathered information or verify key claims
+    Suggestion: Before writing the final report, explicitly validate that all required topics are covered. Create a checklist of requirements and verify each one is addressed.
+
+  [LOW] tool_misuse
+    Agent made redundant searches and didn't optimize tool calls
+    Suggestion: Track previously found URLs to avoid redundant searches. When a useful URL is found in one search, use it directly rather than searching again for the same topic.
+
+  [LOW] incomplete_reasoning
+    Thinking blocks are sparse and don't show deep analysis of alternatives or trade-offs
+    Suggestion: In thinking blocks, explicitly list what information has been gathered, what gaps remain, and what decisions are being made. Use structured checklists.
+
+Strengths:
+  + Successfully completed the full research workflow: search → read → save notes → write report
+  + Consistently maintained awareness of the original task throughout all turns
+  + Created comprehensive, well-structured output with proper citations and formatting
+  + Saved intermediate notes that captured key findings before writing the final report
+  + Good source diversity: used academic papers (arXiv), Anthropic research, OpenAI docs, and community resources
+
+Weaknesses:
+  - Sparse thinking blocks that don't show deep reasoning about information quality or gaps
+  - No recovery strategy when URLs failed - just moved on without attempting alternatives
+  - Redundant searches could have been avoided by tracking previously found resources
+  - Final validation of requirements was implicit rather than explicit
+
+Recommendations:
+  1. Add explicit requirement checklist to thinking process: before writing the report, list all required sections and mark which sources cover each one
+  2. When tool calls fail, immediately attempt alternative approaches (search for correct URL, try different source) rather than continuing
+  3. Implement a 'found resources' tracker to avoid redundant searches and ensure all discovered URLs are used
+  4. Expand thinking blocks to include: what was learned, what gaps remain, and why proceeding to the next step is appropriate

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/optimization_artifacts/iteration_1/optimization.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+============================================================
+PROMPT OPTIMIZATION REPORT
+============================================================
+
+Predicted Improvement: 0.0%
+Confidence: 0%
+
+Key Changes:
+  - Optimization parsing failed - using original prompt
+
+
+============================================================
+OPTIMIZED PROMPT
+============================================================
+You are a research assistant. Help with research tasks using the available tools.

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/examples/interleaved_thinking/optimization_artifacts/iteration_1/optimized_prompt.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+You are a research assistant. Help with research tasks using the available tools.