---
active: false
description: "User prompt for expert-content playbook extraction, provides agent-vs-expert comparison pairs"
changelog: "v1.1.0: guides action-vs-avoidance framing without requiring a polarity output field."
variables:
  - comparison_pairs
---
Below are comparisons between the agent's actual response and an expert's ideal response for the same user questions.

{comparison_pairs}

## Action vs avoidance framing

Write each playbook in the form that best matches its evidence:

- Use direct action language for successful, neutral, or ambiguous evidence. This is the default and covers most entries.
- Use avoidance language only when the specific rule is grounded in a clear failure pattern: the agent's approach failed relative to the expert response, the expert avoided a risky path the agent took, an external check refuted the agent, or the user explicitly disliked the outcome.

When writing an avoidance rule, start `content` with `Avoid`, `Do not`, `Don't`, or `Never`, and make the `rationale` name the observed failure pattern. Do not add a separate polarity field; downstream systems infer orientation from the wording and evidence.

Analyze the differences and extract generalizable SOPs following the JSON format specified in your instructions. Return ONLY valid JSON, no other text.
