zeabur-rag-curate

name

zeabur-rag-curate

description

Interactive knowledge base curation loop — reviews pending items (reports, unverified chunks, failed queries, negative feedback) and walks through fixes one by one. Use when asked to "maintain the knowledge base", "review pending items", "run a curation round", "process reports", "clean up the KB", or any request to improve KB quality. This is the main entry point for the expand → organize → reflect cycle, and requires admin scope.

RAG — Curate

Interactive curation loop for the knowledge base. This skill orchestrates other skills (triage, inspect, edit, learn, search) plus a few inline admin API calls to walk the user through fixing pending issues one by one.

This is NOT an API wrapper. It's a workflow guide. Follow the steps below as a conversation with the user.

Base URL: $ZEABUR_RAG_URL Auth: Authorization: Bearer $RAG_API_KEY — admin scope required

Loop

1. Call zeabur-rag-triage to get the pending items list.
2. Present results as a numbered list grouped by category (🔴 Reports, 🟡 Unverified, 🟠 Low-score, 🔵 Negative feedback, ⚪ Needs-frontmatter). Show counts.
3. If all categories are empty: tell the user "The knowledge base has no pending items — looks healthy ✅" and stop.
4. Wait for user to pick an item by number or description.
5. Run the decision tree for that item type (see below).
6. After each action, echo the result and ask "Next?" to return to the list.
7. User says stop → end the loop.

Decision trees

🔴 Open report

1. If chunk_id is null (type=missing) → skip to step 3.
2. Call zeabur-rag-inspect on the referenced chunk. Show the chunk content + report detail side by side.
3. Classify:

Classification	Action
Fixable — content is wrong or outdated	Draft fix with user → zeabur-rag-edit → close report
Wholly wrong — chunk should not exist	Reject chunk (see Inline commands) → close report
Duplicate of another chunk	Reject this one → point user to the correct chunk → close report
Type=missing — knowledge gap	Draft new content with user → zeabur-rag-learn → close report
Report is invalid — chunk is fine	Close report directly (no chunk changes needed)

4. Every action requires explicit user confirmation before execution.

🟡 Unverified learned chunk

1. Call zeabur-rag-inspect on the chunk. Show full content, tags, text_content.
2. Classify:

Classification	Action
Correct and well-formed	Verify (see Inline commands)
Correct but needs polish	zeabur-rag-edit to fix → then verify
Low quality or wrong	Reject (see Inline commands)

🟠 Low-score signal

1. Call zeabur-rag-search with the original query to confirm the gap.
2. Classify:

Classification	Action
True gap — no relevant chunk exists	Draft new content with user → zeabur-rag-learn
Chunk exists but ranks poorly	zeabur-rag-inspect the chunk → zeabur-rag-edit to improve text_content
Irrelevant or spam query	Dismiss — no action, move to next item

🔵 Negative feedback signal

1. Call zeabur-rag-inspect on each chunk in top_chunk_ids. If top_chunk_ids is null or empty, skip to step 3.
2. Identify which chunk(s) caused the bad result.
3. Classify:

Classification	Action
Chunk content is wrong	zeabur-rag-edit to fix
Chunk should not have been returned	Reject chunk (see Inline commands)
Answer was right but user query was ambiguous	Dismiss — no action
No chunks to inspect (null top_chunk_ids)	Treat as knowledge gap → zeabur-rag-learn

⚪ Needs-frontmatter

A chunk was ingested from a source file without the stable metadata expected by its adapter. Fix the source file and re-ingest it rather than treating the generated chunk as the canonical record.

1. Call zeabur-rag-inspect to show the chunk's url and content.
2. Identify the origin file and the adapter that produced it.
3. Add the stable ID and other frontmatter required by that adapter.
4. Re-run the same adapter against the corrected source.
5. Confirm that the stable-ID chunk replaced the temporary result before closing the item.

Classification	Action
File is real and worth keeping	Add the adapter's required metadata in the origin → re-ingest
File is not worth keeping in KB	Reject the chunk (see Inline commands); user also deletes the source file
File is a duplicate of another chunk	Reject this chunk; point user at the canonical one

Inline commands

These actions don't have dedicated skills. Execute them as direct API calls:

Verify a learned chunk

curl -s -X POST "$ZEABUR_RAG_URL/api/admin/learned/<id>/verify" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RAG_API_KEY"

Returns {"success": true}. The chunk now ranks at full weight in search (unverified learned chunks are downranked to ×0.7 score).

Reject a learned chunk (soft delete)

curl -s -X DELETE "$ZEABUR_RAG_URL/api/admin/learned/<id>" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RAG_API_KEY"

Returns {"success": true}. Sets status='rejected', excluded from all search.

Reject any non-learned chunk (soft delete via PATCH)

curl -s -X PATCH "$ZEABUR_RAG_URL/api/admin/chunks/<id>" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RAG_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"status":"rejected"}'

Returns {"success": true, ...}. For docs/forum chunks, this rejection survives pipeline rebuilds.

Close a report

curl -s -X POST "$ZEABUR_RAG_URL/api/admin/reports/<id>/close" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RAG_API_KEY"

Returns {"success": true}. Closing an already-closed report is treated as success.

Rules

• Never auto-execute mutations. Every edit, verify, reject, learn, or close requires the user to explicitly confirm (e.g. "ok", "verify", "reject", "close").
• Always inspect before edit. You need the existing text_content to construct a new one. The edit endpoint returns 400 if you change title/question/answer without providing text_content.
• Echo results after every action. Show the audit_id, new status, or error message so the user knows what happened.
• Don't retry failed mutations. Surface the error and let the user decide.
• One item at a time. Process triage items sequentially. Don't batch.