본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

bordini-hubner-2007-jason

Design AgentSpeak-style BDI plan libraries with explicit event, context, failure, and authority boundaries. NOT for treating BDI plans as safety approval or guaranteed execution.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(19)

  • SKILL.md7.8 KB
  • _book_identity.json234 B
  • _raw_response.md94.8 KB
  • CHANGELOG.md221 B
  • diagrams/01_flowchart_bdi_reasoning_cycle.md1.4 KB
  • diagrams/01_reasoning-cycle.md292 B
  • diagrams/02_failure-state.md905 B
  • diagrams/02_sequenceDiagram_multi-agent_coordination_via_s.md2.0 KB
  • diagrams/03_intention-operators.md1.5 KB
  • diagrams/03_stateDiagram-v2_plan_execution_&_failure_recov.md1.2 KB
  • diagrams/INDEX.md522 B
  • references/context-driven-plan-selection.md1.9 KB
  • references/goal-subgoal-decomposition.md3.1 KB
  • references/graceful-failure-and-recovery.md1.6 KB
  • references/INDEX.md519 B
  • references/knowledge-level-communication.md1.5 KB
  • references/procedural-knowledge-encoding.md1.3 KB
  • references/reactive-proactive-integration.md1.5 KB
  • references/source-access-and-jason-boundary.md1.0 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Programming BDI plans with Jason and AgentSpeak

Source boundary

Bordini, Hübner, and Wooldridge, Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason (Wiley, 2007; DOI 10.1002/9780470061848) supplies the historical topic. The accessible Wiley record is bibliographic metadata only; the book body was not accessed. Current implementation guidance is from the author-maintained Jason tutorial, FAQ, technical guides, and 3.3.0 API, accessed 2026-09-24. It supports the cycle and language rules stated below, not a transport guarantee or a claim about a local runtime. Verify executable syntax and semantics against the pinned Jason release you use.

Plan-library decision

flowchart TD
  E[Event: percept, belief update, or goal adoption] --> C[Find plans whose trigger and context hold]
  C --> Q{Applicable plans?}
  Q -->|none| U[Record unmatched event or emit a local failure disposition]
  Q -->|one or more| S[Apply documented local selection policy]
  S --> X[Execute one intended step]
  X --> R{Step result}
  R -->|success| N[Continue or complete intention]
  R -->|action/subgoal failure| F[Offer explicit failure-handling plans]
  R -->|separate admitted event| E
  F --> L{Recovery context holds?}
  L -->|yes| X
  L -->|no| U

Do not make plan selection look deterministic unless the selected runtime and local policy define the order. “Most specific,” “highest success rate,” “lowest cost,” and fixed numeric branch/retry/depth thresholds are policies that require a measured local rationale. An unmatched event is evidence of missing/unsatisfied plan coverage, not permission for a broad catch-all plan to hide it.

Worked local example: route a sealed package within a model workspace

The domain is constructed and non-clinical. route_known and route_blocked are local beliefs; an integration must define their provenance and freshness. The snippets show the retained context-sensitive, subgoal, and recovery pattern. They are illustrative AgentSpeak-style fragments and were not run against a Jason interpreter in this offline bundle.

+!deliver(Package, Destination) : route_known(Destination) & not route_blocked(Destination) <-
    !move_to(Destination);
    !record_arrival(Package, Destination).

+!deliver(Package, Destination) : route_blocked(Destination) <-
    !request_route_review(Package, Destination).

-!move_to(Destination) : route_blocked(Destination) <-
    !request_route_review(package_underway, Destination).

A fresh +route_blocked(zone_3) can cause another event cycle; it does not retroactively prove that the original move failed or automatically cancel a remote action. The recovery plan executes only if its context holds. If no route-review plan applies, record the unmatched failure for review rather than recursively re-adopting the same goal.

stateDiagram-v2
  [*] --> adopted
  adopted --> selected: matching plan and context
  adopted --> unmatched: no applicable plan
  selected --> running
  running --> completed: plan body completes
  running --> recovery_event: action or subgoal reports failure
  running --> reconsider: explicit application reconsideration
  recovery_event --> running: recovery plan context holds
  recovery_event --> unmatched: no recovery plan applies
  reconsider --> selected: a newly selected plan is locally justified
  reconsider --> unmatched: coverage remains absent
  completed --> [*]
  unmatched --> [*]

The state view includes an application-defined reconsideration step; a new belief event alone does not replace the executing plan.

Practical plan-library method

  1. Write each trigger and its context in a coverage table; list the evidence source that can establish each context belief.
  2. Keep normal and recovery plans distinguishable. A recovery plan must state what failure event it addresses and what it requires before acting.
  3. Decide whether multiple applicable plans are intentional. If they are, publish the local selection rule and test ties/unknown estimates. If they are not, refine contexts or flag ambiguity.
  4. Put cycle prevention in local state, not an unexplained universal depth limit. A useful local guard can retain (goal, arguments, evidenceVersion) and escalate on repeated unchanged evidence.
  5. Treat .send-style communication as an assertion exchange. A received message does not grant an action authority or make its content a true belief without an admission policy.

The operational cycle is: select an event, find relevant plans, test plan contexts against the current belief base, select an option, then execute one topmost body element of a selected intention. Default intention interleaving is round-robin, but it is customizable and a long Java/internal action can still occupy the cycle. A belief update creates an event; it does not silently rewrite a running plan. Put any stale-assumption check in the body or a failure/recovery plan.

Use !g when the caller must suspend until the achievement subgoal completes. Use !!g only when a distinct intention is intended and the caller may continue. |&| waits for both branches; ||| continues after the first branch and drops the other. atomic prevents other intentions from running, so reserve it for short local critical regions. A failed +!g can generate -!g in the same intention; a matching recovery plan can inspect failure information and compensate. It never rolls back a prior external effect automatically.

Failure modes

ObservationCorrect local response
Context not establishedPreserve the event as unmatched or request bounded evidence; do not use true as a universal fallback.
Action reports failureProduce a failure event and try only a recovery plan whose context holds.
Repeated attempt with unchanged evidenceRecord a cycle candidate and apply a stated local stop/escalation rule.
Conflicting observationsRetain provenance and invoke an explicitly defined belief-management policy; Jason syntax alone does not resolve conflict.
Missing replyRecord a local timeout outcome; it does not prove remote state.

Quality gates

  • Each used goal/event has an explicit coverage table, including unmatched and recovery cases.
  • Selection ordering, if needed, is a local policy with tie and unknown-value behavior.
  • Context beliefs state their evidence/freshness assumptions.
  • Recovery plans are context-guarded and cannot silently create an infinite re-adoption loop.
  • Communication and external effects have separate admission/authorization checks.
  • Any executable Jason claim cites the pinned release and a run result.

Read next

Bundle navigation

diagrams index.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

curiositech/port-daddy32026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

curiositech/port-daddy32026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

curiositech/port-daddy32026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

curiositech/port-daddy32026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

curiositech/port-daddy32026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Apply cognitive task analysis to expert work that depends on perceptual cues, branching judgment, and recurring monitoring loops. Use when decomposing expert capability into agent structure, simulation design, or validation interviews. NOT for ordinary step-by-step SOP capture or simple pipelines with no tacit cue layer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

curiositech/port-daddy32026년 10월 19일 업데이트

curiositech의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고