| name | saaiasa |
| description | Classify utterances in a gate/procedure/document so the system doesn't answer the wrong thing. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Apply Intent + Speech Acts
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Overview
Classify utterances in a gate/procedure/document so the system doesn't answer the wrong thing (question vs command vs judgment vs guess). Many problems in procedure execution come from treating one speech act type as another.
Steps
Step 1: Extract Utterances
From the target artifact (gate, procedure, document):
- Extract all question-like lines (containing "?", "whether", "how", "what", "is there")
- Extract all instruction-like lines (containing imperatives, "should", "must", "do")
- Extract all judgment-like lines (containing evaluative language, "good", "adequate", "correct")
- Extract all prediction-like lines (containing "will", "would", "likely", "expect")
Step 2: Classify Each Utterance
For each extracted line, assign a speech act type:
| Type | Definition | Example | Correct Response |
|---|
| Question | Seeks information | "What are the risks?" | Answer with information |
| Command | Directs action | "List all dependencies" | Execute the action |
| Request | Asks for action (politely) | "Could you check..." | Execute or negotiate |
| Constraint | Sets boundaries | "Must not exceed budget" | Honor as a limit |
| Judgment | Evaluates quality | "This is adequate" | Accept or challenge with evidence |
| Prediction | Forecasts outcome | "This will succeed" | Verify or challenge |
| Hypothesis | Proposes testable claim | "If X then Y" | Design test |
| Goal | States desired outcome | "We want to increase..." | Plan toward it |
| Story | Narrates events | "Last time, we..." | Extract lessons |
Step 3: Identify Mismatches
Flag lines where the surface form doesn't match the function:
| Surface Form | Actual Function | Problem | Fix |
|---|
| Question ("Is this good?") | Judgment (seeking validation) | Will get answer instead of evaluation | Rewrite as explicit judgment request |
| Command ("Determine if...") | Question (seeking information) | Will get action instead of answer | Rewrite as question |
| Judgment ("This works") | Hypothesis (untested) | Will be treated as settled | Rewrite as hypothesis to test |
| Question ("Don't you think...") | Command (seeking agreement) | Leading question | Rewrite as open question or explicit command |
Step 4: Split Bundled Utterances
Identify lines that contain multiple speech acts disguised as one:
Before: "Is the goal clear and are the steps complete and has the timeline been validated?"
After:
- "Is the goal clear?" (Question — definition check)
- "Are the steps complete?" (Question — completeness check)
- "Has the timeline been validated?" (Question — validation check)
Each should be answered independently.
Step 5: Propose Rewrites
For each problematic utterance:
REWRITE:
Original: [the line as written]
Type detected: [what it looks like]
Type intended: [what it's trying to do]
Problem: [why the mismatch causes issues]
Rewrite: [clearer version]
Step 6: Report
INTENT + SPEECH ACTS AUDIT:
Target: [what was analyzed]
Lines analyzed: [N]
Type distribution:
| Type | Count | Issues |
|------|-------|--------|
| Question | [N] | [N with mismatches] |
| Command | [N] | [N with mismatches] |
| Judgment | [N] | [N with mismatches] |
| [etc] | | |
Mismatches found: [N]
Bundled utterances: [N] → split into [N] individual lines
Rewrites proposed: [N]
Top priority rewrites: [which are most impactful]
When to Use
- When a line reads like a question but functions like a command or judgment
- When a gate/procedure mixes description and recommendation
- When "what is being asked?" is unclear
- → INVOKE: /saqrc (question rewrite chains) for unclear questions
- → INVOKE: /saadag (detectors and generators) for finding ambiguity
Verification
