Service-Desk World Knowledge Example

This example shows how reusable project knowledge grows across Tasks. It is not a template for one fixed service-desk scenario.

After Task 1

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:

• the Harness uses search_cases, get_case, and update_case;
• case visibility depends on team membership;
• entitlement and account state can change the valid action;
• updates write an event and change the case row in one transaction;
• reset rebuilds SQLite from a fixed structured fixture; and
• the Verifier can compare raw case and event state without exposing it.

Create .agents/skills/service-desk-world/SKILL.md. Add only these proven facts, their source paths, and routes to any reusable script.

After Task 2

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:

• documents need stable structured facts before prose generation;
• article freshness is decided by effective_at, not insertion order;
• incident-product and case-product links must stay complete;
• generated messages need fact-ID review for unsupported claims; and
• known-good, valid-alternative, wrong, shortcut, collateral, and corrupt- evidence fixtures expose different Verifier faults.

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.

Resulting project skill

.agents/skills/service-desk-world/
├── SKILL.md
├── references/
│   └── data-and-verification.md
└── scripts/
    └── validate_fixture.py

Its 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.

Evidence of value

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.