Search academic papers, scholarly articles, and research publications through SandBase. Use when asked for literature review, academic citations, scholarly research, paper discovery, or scientific evidence gathering.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Triage and prioritize a support ticket or customer issue. Use when a new ticket comes in and needs categorization, assigning P1-P4 priority, deciding which team should handle it, or checking whether it's a duplicate or known issue before routing.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Use only support, knowledge-base, and project-tracker sources that are actually available and authorized in the host. State clearly when a source was not checked.
Categorize, prioritize, and route an incoming support ticket or customer issue. Produces a structured triage assessment with a suggested initial response.
When checking public documentation or known-issue evidence, read the SandBase API map. Resolve the listed capability with sandbase_discover, inspect its returned name with sandbase_inspect, then follow execute_as to call sandbase_run(name: "<returned name>", arguments: { ... }) using only the current schema. For async results, poll sandbase_run_get with the returned run_id within the task budget; report pending or failed runs without automatically resubmitting them.
/ticket-triage <ticket text, customer message, or issue description>
Examples:
/ticket-triage Customer says their dashboard has been showing a blank page since this morning/ticket-triage "I was charged twice for my subscription this month"/ticket-triage User can't connect their SSO — getting a 403 error on the callback URL/ticket-triage Feature request: they want to export reports as PDFRead the input and extract:
Using the category taxonomy and priority framework below:
Before routing, check available sources:
Apply the duplicate detection process below.
If none of these sources is available, mark duplicate and known-issue status as Not checked; never report “no duplicate” merely because no search was run.
Using the routing rules below, recommend which team or queue should handle this based on category and complexity.
## Triage: [One-line issue summary]
**Category:** [Primary] / [Secondary if applicable]
**Priority:** [P1-P4] — [Brief justification]
**Product area:** [Area/team]
### Issue Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of what the customer is experiencing]
### Key Details
- **Customer:** [Name/account if known]
- **Impact:** [Who and what is affected]
- **Workaround:** [Available / Not available / Unknown]
- **Related tickets:** [Links to similar issues if found]
- **Known issue:** [Yes — link / No — searched sources / Not checked / Checking]
### Routing Recommendation
**Route to:** [Team or queue]
**Why:** [Brief reasoning]
### Suggested Initial Response
[Draft first response to the customer — acknowledge the issue,
set expectations, provide workaround if available.
Use the auto-response templates below as a starting point.]
### Internal Notes
- [Any additional context for the agent picking this up]
- [Reproduction hints if it's a bug]
- [Escalation triggers to watch for]
After presenting the triage:
Assign every ticket a primary category and optionally a secondary category:
| Category | Description | Signal Words |
|---|---|---|
| Bug | Product is behaving incorrectly or unexpectedly | Error, broken, crash, not working, unexpected, wrong, failing |
| How-to | Customer needs guidance on using the product | How do I, can I, where is, setting up, configure, help with |
| Feature request | Customer wants a capability that doesn't exist | Would be great if, wish I could, any plans to, requesting |
| Billing | Payment, subscription, invoice, or pricing issues | Charge, invoice, payment, subscription, refund, upgrade, downgrade |
| Account | Account access, permissions, settings, or user management | Login, password, access, permission, SSO, locked out, can't sign in |
| Integration | Issues connecting to third-party tools or APIs | API, webhook, integration, connect, OAuth, sync, third-party |
| Security | Security concerns, data access, or compliance questions | Data breach, unauthorized, compliance, GDPR, SOC 2, vulnerability |
| Data | Data quality, migration, import/export issues | Missing data, export, import, migration, incorrect data, duplicates |
| Performance | Speed, reliability, or availability issues | Slow, timeout, latency, down, unavailable, degraded |
Use the organization's documented SLA when available. The response times below are illustrative defaults and should not be presented as a customer commitment unless authorized.
Criteria: Production system down, data loss or corruption, security breach, all or most users affected.
SLA expectation: Respond within 1 hour. Continuous work until resolved or mitigated. Updates every 1-2 hours.
Criteria: Major feature broken, significant workflow blocked, many users affected, no workaround.
SLA expectation: Respond within 4 hours. Active investigation same day. Updates every 4 hours.
Criteria: Feature partially broken, workaround available, single user or small team affected.
SLA expectation: Respond within 1 business day. Resolution or update within 3 business days.
Criteria: Minor inconvenience, cosmetic issue, general question, feature request.
SLA expectation: Respond within 2 business days. Resolution at normal pace.
Automatically bump priority up when:
Route tickets based on category and complexity:
| Route to | When |
|---|---|
| Tier 1 (frontline support) | How-to questions, known issues with documented solutions, billing inquiries, password resets |
| Tier 2 (senior support) | Bugs requiring investigation, complex configuration, integration troubleshooting, account issues |
| Engineering | Confirmed bugs needing code fixes, infrastructure issues, performance degradation |
| Product | Feature requests with significant demand, design decisions, workflow gaps |
| Security | Data access concerns, vulnerability reports, compliance questions |
| Billing/Finance | Refund requests, contract disputes, complex billing adjustments |
Before creating a new ticket or routing, check available sources for duplicates:
If a duplicate is found:
Perform those external updates only when the user explicitly requests and authorizes them.
Thank you for reporting this. I can see how [specific impact]
would be disruptive for your work.
I've classified this as a [priority] issue for investigation.
[If workaround exists: "In the meantime, you
can [workaround]."]
I'll update you within [SLA timeframe] with what we find.
Great question! [Direct answer or link to documentation]
[If more complex: "Let me walk you through the steps:"]
[Steps or guidance]
Let me know if that helps, or if you have any follow-up
questions.
Thank you for this suggestion — I can see why [capability]
would be valuable for your workflow.
I've documented this for product-team review.
While I can't commit to a specific timeline, your feedback
directly informs our roadmap priorities.
[If alternative exists: "In the meantime, you might find
[alternative] helpful for achieving something similar."]
I understand billing issues need prompt attention. Let me
look into this for you.
[If straightforward: resolution details]
[If complex: "I'm reviewing your account now and will have
an answer for you within [timeframe]."]
Thank you for flagging this — we take security concerns
seriously and are reviewing this immediately.
This should be escalated to the security team for investigation.
We'll follow up with you within [timeframe] with our findings.
[If action is needed: "In the meantime, we recommend
[protective action]."]
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Search academic papers, scholarly articles, and research publications through SandBase. Use when asked for literature review, academic citations, scholarly research, paper discovery, or scientific evidence gathering.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Research emerging academic trends by combining scholarly databases, web sources, and news to identify rising research areas, breakthrough papers, and shifting scientific consensus. Ideal for R&D teams tracking frontier science.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Create, implement, or review accessibility review work with format, accessibility, performance, and visual-verification controls. Use when the requested deliverable depends on accessibility review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Plan, implement, or review agentic eval work in an existing codebase with compatibility, security, and verification controls. Use when the user explicitly requests agentic eval work.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Create or review ai seo deliverables with audience, evidence, voice, and conversion-quality controls. Use when the user explicitly asks for ai seo work.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Apply airflow dag patterns in reproducible local data workflows with version-aware APIs, explicit assumptions, and validation. Use when the user chooses airflow dag patterns or its strengths fit the task.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。