Build a sourced internal knowledge agent with gap tracking

Why use this

1. An employee asking an internal question may need details scattered across a wiki, repository and data source. A confident answer can hide a conflict between an old document and current implementation, while unanswered questions disappear into chat.

2. This job could provide evidence-linked answers and make unresolved topics visible to the right owner. Its value depends on preserving access boundaries and distinguishing an actual answer from a plausible synthesis of incomplete material.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile source scope and recency, cite specific support and identify when an owner must resolve ambiguity.

Simpler alternative

Use an indexed FAQ when questions have stable answers in one maintained source.

Unsuitable when

Source permissions cannot be preserved or the agent would expose restricted knowledge to broader audiences.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Source inventory

   Owner

   Knowledge owner

   Minimum scope

   Approved document/repository subsets and audience scopes

   Quality check

   Confirm ownership, access and update dates

2. Name

   Question and owner map

   Owner

   Team lead

   Minimum scope

   Bounded question types and responsible teams

   Quality check

   Distinguish verified owners from guesses

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read approved excerpts and maintain a private proposed gap log; no broad warehouse or repository grant.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Connector availability, permission propagation, search coverage and exact runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. New access grants, shared gap records, owner notifications and agent publication require authorization.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Answer draft with claim-level references, uncertainty and a proposed owner/gap entry.

Critical checks

1. Verify citations answer the question; preserve conflicting versions; ensure every recipient may access the underlying facts.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Current code contradicts an old wiki page

   Why it matters

   Combining both creates a false answer

   Proposed response

   Present the conflict and route a question for review.

2. Signal

   A citation is accessible only to administrators

   Why it matters

   The answer may leak restricted information

   Proposed response

   Withhold that detail and seek an authorized source.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define approved sources, ownership and answer boundaries.

Ongoing review

1. Review stale references and unresolved gaps.

Unknowns

1. Search quality, connector permissions, maintenance and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent three internal excerpts with different dates and audience labels, including a contradiction and one unanswered question.

Acceptance checks

1. Cite supported facts; flag the contradiction; leave the gap unresolved; send no notification.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if access labels conflict or an answer requires unapproved sensitive information.

Limits

1. A cited answer can still be incomplete; a gap log is not evidence that its owner has accepted work.