Track requested habits with bounded check-ins

Why use this

1. A habit log becomes misleading when unanswered check-ins are counted as failures or a late reply is assigned to the wrong day. Reminders can also become unwelcome when the original schedule or goal no longer fits the person's circumstances.

2. A bounded check-in plan could define how confirmed completion, explicit non-completion and missing responses are recorded. The user could review patterns without being pressured by invented streaks or escalating follow-ups that they never requested.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Interpret brief user replies in context and recognize ambiguity about date or completion without imposing a judgment.

Simpler alternative

Use a habit app's manual checkbox when the person prefers self-logging and does not need conversational clarification.

Unsuitable when

Check-ins are unwanted or the workflow would infer health conditions or use guilt to encourage compliance.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Habit preferences

   Owner

   User

   Minimum scope

   Selected routine, check-in wording, schedule and channel

   Quality check

   Confirm boundaries and an easy way to pause or revise the plan.

2. Name

   Response sample

   Owner

   User

   Minimum scope

   Fictional dated replies and permitted completion labels

   Quality check

   Distinguish no response from an explicit answer.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Offline response examples and a proposed local log schema.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: current runtime, scheduling, messaging availability and timezone handling.

External actions requiring approval

1. Recurring check-ins, bounded follow-ups, schedule changes and any sharing of personal records.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Check-in specification and weekly-summary template with confirmed, declined and unknown states.

Critical checks

1. Streak calculations exclude unsupported completion assumptions.

2. The follow-up plan stays within the user's approved boundary and uses neutral language.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   An unanswered message is recorded as a missed habit.

   Why it matters

   The summary substitutes silence for evidence.

   Proposed response

   Record an unknown response state and leave completion unresolved.

2. Signal

   A late reply crosses the user's local midnight.

   Why it matters

   The log may assign the answer to the wrong habit day.

   Proposed response

   Use the referenced check-in date or ask a short clarification.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Agree labels, local dates and follow-up limits.

Ongoing review

1. Resolve ambiguous replies and revisit goals only with the user's participation.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: message charges, scheduler reliability and whether this format suits the user.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

A fictional week contains a confirmed completion, an explicit skip, an unanswered check-in and a late reply.

Acceptance checks

1. Keep unknown distinct from non-completion.

2. Associate the late reply with the correct check-in without inflating a streak.

Stop conditions

1. Actual reminders, personal health data or unrequested follow-ups are needed.

Limits

1. The proposed checks and safeguards are editorial recommendations, not evidence of successful execution or permission to act. The linked implementation retains its own observed outcome and approval limits.