Chaim
a1969dd90d
All checks were successful
Build & Deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Successful in 7s
Two structural bugs surfaced while monitoring the fresh end-to-end
run on case 8174-24:
1. **No appraiser_facts extraction.** legal-analyst.md's "what to
extract" table didn't mention doc_type='appraisal' at all, and
`extract_appraiser_facts` wasn't in its tools frontmatter. The
CEO compounded this by writing in CMPA-16's body that all 3
appraisals were "reference materials, do not extract" — which
is correct for `extract_claims` but wrong for the appraisal-
specific extractor. Result: 0 appraiser_facts in DB after a
full run, even though the user had carefully tagged each
appraisal's `appraiser_side` (committee/appellant) precisely
so detect_conflicts could compare them.
2. **Issue stays in_progress, Paperclip retries forever.** Step 7
("שמירה ודיווח") instructed the analyst to update the *case*
status, post a comment, send email, and wake the CEO — but
never to PATCH the issue itself to `done`. Paperclip's
"in_progress with no live execution" watchdog then re-woke the
analyst, which posted "I'm done" again, which re-triggered
another wakeup. We saw three iterations on CMPA-16 before the
issue finally transitioned. The PATCH pattern was already
documented in HEARTBEAT.md §4ב — the analyst skill just never
referenced it.
Changes:
• legal-analyst.md
- Added mcp__legal-ai__extract_appraiser_facts to tools list.
- Rewrote the "what to extract" table to use doc_type as the
key column and added an `appraisal` row + a callout explaining
why it goes through a different extractor.
- Added explicit step 5 "חלץ עובדות שמאי" with the call.
- Step 7 now PATCHes the issue to `done` (or `blocked` on
failure) before waking the CEO. Refers to the actual incident
so the rule has a concrete anchor.
- Cleaned up the chunking guidance — phase 1 of claude_session
already handles big docs automatically; no need to manually
split.
• legal-ceo.md (analyst issue template section)
- Replaced the generic "list of docs not to extract from" with a
per-doc_type action table that explicitly says
`appraisal → extract_appraiser_facts (NOT extract_claims)`.
- Added an explicit guard: "for every appraisal in the case,
verify the issue body says to run extract_appraiser_facts —
otherwise the writer gets a numbers-free block ז".
- Added the close-the-issue-with-PATCH instruction so the CEO
knows to write that into every analyst issue.
These edits don't affect the run currently in flight (the CEO's
prompt was already cached and the analyst already ran). They take
effect on the next analyst invocation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>