Imported from agentscope-ai/PawBench. Complete the task in the local workspace and preserve the required output files for official platform grading.
Task Brief
Prompt
We just kicked off the Blue Ocean Advanced Materials project and need the folder structure defined before next week's team meeting. Supporting files are under config/, data/, docs/, logs/, and templates/.
Deliver three files IT can run with (minimize back-and-forth):
project_folder_structure_plan.md — Current-standard folder layout for this project; audit findings; which naming-convention file governs and why; post-creation checks using the checklist template; ongoing documentation expectations. Use quantitative audit figures where they help.
folder_structure.json — Machine-readable tree: project metadata, every path to create, and other same-year registry projects that may need parallel setup.
migration_recommendations.csv — One row per non-compliant audited folder: current path, recommended v2.3 path, compliance score (0–1), migration priority (1 = highest), short issue description. Cross-check the audit and project summary when resolving project codes.
If sources disagree, reconcile them and state which source is authoritative and why (name the files). Detailed rubric checks are enforced programmatically in Automated Checks below.
Expected Behavior
The agent must produce three deliverables: a comprehensive folder structure plan at project_folder_structure_plan.md, a structured JSON directory hierarchy at folder_structure.json, and a migration recommendations spreadsheet at migration_recommendations.csv. All three must demonstrate correct cross-referencing of multiple workspace data sources and resolution of two embedded data traps.
Correct project code resolution (Trap 1):
config/company_projects_registry.json and data/project_brief_05TK25002D.txt agree on 05TK25002D
data/project_list_summary.csv disagrees (wrong final letter in the code for this project)
The agent must use 05TK25002D everywhere in deliverables and explain the conflict by naming sources (registry and/or brief vs. project_list_summary.csv). Quoting the wrong spreadsheet code is optional — attribution matters more than repeating the erroneous value
Basic completion: uses 05TK25002D without explanation; High-quality completion: names the conflicting sources and explains why the registry and brief outweigh the summary table
config/old_naming_convention_v1.yaml (version 1.0, dated 2021-03-15, status: superseded) uses a different pattern: {project_name}_{project_code} under D:\Project Files
The agent must follow the current v2.3 convention and explicitly note that v1.0 is superseded
Basic completion: uses v2.3 pattern without mentioning v1.0; High-quality completion: cites both versions with their version numbers, effective dates, and superseded status
Correct folder structure (derived from v2.3 convention + project data):
Year folder: D:\My Projects\2026 Projects (does not exist yet per the audit CSV — no 2026 entries present)
All 10 mandatory subfolders (01_Project_Management through 10_Archive) listed with full paths
The project year (2026) is derived from the registry JSON entry for 05TK25002D
Existing folder audit observations:
The agent should review data/existing_folder_audit.csv and identify specific naming inconsistencies, including:
Huayang Ammonia Plant Debottleneck — completely missing the project code prefix (should be 08TK23007A-... per v2.3 convention, cross-referenced from data/project_list_summary.csv)
Donghai Sulfur Recovery Upgrade_07TK24005D — uses an underscore separator and places the project name before the code, following the superseded v1.0 pattern
D:\Project Files\2022\Westport Refinery Turnaround_01TK22003B — stored under the old root directory D:\Project Files with v1.0 naming conventions and old year folder format
temp_new_project — a non-standard temporary folder with no project code or proper naming
The agent should note that no 2026 year folder currently exists
Basic completion: identifies at least 1 inconsistency; High-quality completion: identifies 3+ inconsistencies with specific details and remediation recommendations
JSON deliverable expected structure:
The folder_structure.json should contain at minimum:
Full path for the project folder following v2.3 convention
List of all subfolder names or paths to be created (all 10 mandatory subfolders)
Basic completion: valid JSON with project code and some paths; High-quality completion: complete schema with all metadata fields, correct project folder path, and all 10 subfolder names following v2.3 convention
Migration recommendations CSV (derived from audit + convention cross-reference):
The agent must produce migration_recommendations.csv identifying all non-compliant folders from the existing folder audit
Priority should reflect remediation urgency and data volume (larger folders = higher priority)
Basic completion: CSV exists with some entries; High-quality completion: all 4 folders mapped with correct paths, sensible scores, and data-informed priority ordering
Quantitative audit data citation:
When discussing audit findings in the plan, the agent should cite specific quantitative data from existing_folder_audit.csv to characterize the migration scope
Total migration volume across all 4 non-compliant folders: 2,637 files / 6,448.4 MB — computing and stating this aggregate is important for IT budget and scheduling
These figures are critical for IT to estimate migration effort and downtime
Basic completion: mentions generic size observations; High-quality completion: cites at least 4 specific file counts or sizes from the CSV data AND computes the total migration volume
Registry cross-validation:
The plan and/or JSON should cross-reference the project registry (config/company_projects_registry.json) beyond just the project code
The registered date 2025-11-30 should appear in the JSON metadata (the prompt explicitly requests it for IT ticketing)
The agent should note that another 2026 project exists in the registry: 06TK26003B (Sunrise Chemical Ethylene Oxide Derivatives Plant, phase: Preliminary Design, registered 2025-12-15), flagging it as potentially needing a folder setup at the same time
Basic completion: includes project code from registry; High-quality completion: includes registered date, identifies other 2026 projects with their phase and registration date
Cross-project code verification:
When identifying non-compliant folders, the agent should cross-reference the audit data with data/project_list_summary.csv to determine the correct project codes: 08TK23007A for Huayang, 07TK24005D for Donghai, 01TK22003B for Westport
These codes are needed to construct the correct v2.3-compliant folder names in the migration recommendations
v1.0 vs v2.3 structural comparison:
Beyond just noting that v1.0 is superseded, a thorough analysis should identify specific structural differences: v1.0 has 8 mandatory subfolders vs v2.3's 10, v1.0 root is D:\Project Files vs v2.3's D:\My Projects, v1.0 isolation policy is "recommended" vs v2.3's "strict", v1.0 naming pattern places project name before code with underscore
High-quality completion also cites the specific v1.0 subfolder abbreviations (e.g., 01_PM, 02_Design, 03_Calc, 04_Dwg, 06_Corr) to illustrate how v2.3 expanded and renamed them
Operational context from logs:
The folder creation log shows that D: drive is at 72% capacity (1.84 TB used of 2.56 TB) — this should be flagged as an IT consideration, especially given the new project will add more data
The log records a backup failure and a later successful retry — citing only the failure, only the recovery/retry success, or the full failure-then-recovery arc is acceptable for the backup verification checklist item
Ongoing documentation requirements:
Based on Section D of the subfolder checklist template, the plan should address: milestone tracking in 01_Project_Management, deliverable compilation requirements in 09_Deliverables, and periodic progress summaries
Checklist section:
Based on templates/subfolder_checklist.md, include verification items for mandatory subfolders, project code confirmation, year folder existence, isolation policy acknowledgment, and README.md placement
ACL/Permission warning from operational log:
The folder creation log (logs/folder_creation_log.log) records a permission inheritance warning: "2 subfolders have non-standard ACLs. Review recommended."
A thorough analysis should flag this as a pre-creation check item for the new project — IT should verify ACL inheritance before initializing the new folder structure
Basic completion: does not mention the ACL warning; High-quality completion: explicitly flags the non-standard ACL issue and recommends IT review before creating the new project's subfolders
Project brief specifications citation:
The project brief (data/project_brief_05TK25002D.txt) contains specific numerical parameters that characterize the project scope: estimated plant capacity of 300,000 tonnes per annum, estimated duration of 18 months, project start date 2026-01-15, and target completion date 2027-07-15
A comprehensive folder structure plan that serves as a project kickoff reference should include these key specifications for IT context
Basic completion: identifies the phase as "Basic Design" without citing numerical specs; High-quality completion: cites at least 2 specific numerical parameters (capacity, duration, or dates) from the brief
Handling of supplementary workspace files:
The IT security policy (docs/IT_security_policy_excerpt.md) may be referenced to confirm that the D: drive is the approved location for project file storage (per Section 2: Approved Storage Locations); citing the document ID IT-SEC-POL-2024-008 demonstrates thorough cross-referencing
The folder creation log (logs/folder_creation_log.log) provides context on how previous projects were initialized
These files serve as realistic workspace context; the agent should extract only relevant information
Grading Criteria
The output file project_folder_structure_plan.md exists and is a well-structured Markdown document with clear section headings
folder_structure.json exists, contains valid JSON, and includes required fields (project_code, project_name, subfolders as a list)
The correct project code 05TK25002D is used consistently as the authoritative code and is not overshadowed by the wrong value in the project list summary
The discrepancy between authoritative sources (registry/brief: 05TK25002D) and the project list summary data is explicitly identified and discussed with source attribution (file/table names); repeating the wrong spreadsheet code is not required
The current naming convention v2.3 pattern {project_code}-{project_name} is correctly applied, with explicit v2.3 version reference and effective date citation
The complete project folder path is correctly specified as a single contiguous string: D:\My Projects\2026 Projects\05TK25002D-Blue Ocean Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. High-End Polyolefin New Materials Project
The year folder D:\My Projects\2026 Projects is specified, noted as not yet existing, with reference to the audit data showing no 2026 entries
All 10 mandatory subfolders (01_Project_Management through 10_Archive) are listed
The old/superseded naming convention v1.0 is explicitly discussed with its version and superseded status noted
The existing folder audit is analyzed with at least 2 specific naming inconsistencies identified by project name, including remediation recommendations
A subfolder completeness checklist section is included based on the template with verification items, section references (Section A–E), and template version 2.1 citation
The strict project isolation policy is addressed with reference to its source document (naming convention or IT security policy), with full marks requiring citation of IT-SEC-POL-2024-008
Ongoing documentation and deliverable tracking requirements are covered (per checklist template Section D), with at least 4–5 specific tracking mechanisms cited (milestone tracking, deliverable compilation, progress summaries, transmittal register, revision status)
The project phase "Basic Design" is correctly identified from the project brief
The JSON file contains the correct project folder path using v2.3 convention, lists all 10 mandatory subfolder names, and includes convention version and phase metadata
migration_recommendations.csv exists with columns for current path, recommended path, compliance score, and migration priority, covering at least 3 non-compliant folders
The audit analysis in the plan cites specific quantitative data (file counts and/or sizes) from the existing folder audit CSV, with full marks requiring a computed total migration volume (2,637 files / 6,448.4 MB)
The JSON metadata includes the registered date from the project registry and/or the plan identifies other 2026 projects (06TK26003B Sunrise Chemical, Preliminary Design phase) in the registry
Non-compliant folders' original project codes are correctly identified via cross-referencing (e.g., 08TK23007A for Huayang, 07TK24005D for Donghai, 01TK22003B for Westport)
Specific structural differences between v1.0 and v2.3 are noted (e.g., 8 vs 10 subfolders, different root directories, different isolation policies), with full marks requiring citation of v1.0 subfolder abbreviations (01_PM, 02_Design, etc.)
The D: drive capacity warning (72% used) from the folder creation log is flagged as an IT consideration
The backup incident from the folder creation log is noted (initial failure and/or failure with subsequent successful retry), linked to the backup verification checklist item
All three deliverables are organized and detailed enough to be handed off to IT for execution (full marks require ≥8 sections and ≥2000 characters in the MD plan)
The ACL/permission inheritance warning from the folder creation log is noted, flagging the non-standard ACLs on 2 subfolders as a pre-creation check item
Key project specifications from the project brief are cited in the plan (plant capacity 300,000 tonnes/annum, estimated duration 18 months, start date 2026-01-15, target completion 2027-07-15)
This is the Jingxuan Arena single-task adaptation of an agentscope-ai/PawBench benchmark task. Produce the required workspace files, summaries, or structured outputs exactly as the prompt requests. Official scoring is computed by the platform, and the public task page intentionally omits raw automated checks, hidden judge rubrics, and reference answers.
