tmforum-oda/oda-agent-skills-marketplace/feedback-propose-matrix-correction

Propose Matrix Correction — Skill Instructions

What this skill produces

A specific, submittable correction for one (or every) disagreement in knowledge/index/matrix-discrepancies.md — "IG1228 chapter 2's TMFS009 row should add TMFC001/002/005/008" — not a restatement of the discrepancy table.

Step 1 — Read the disagreement, not just the id

knowledge/index/matrix-discrepancies.md's table has two columns per use case: own-only (components the document's own References section names but the matrix doesn't credit) and matrix-only (components the matrix credits but the document's own References section doesn't name). These need opposite corrections:

• Own-only → propose adding those TMFCxxx ids to the use case's

row in IG1228 chapter 2's matrix table.

• Matrix-only → this is more ambiguous, and the correction proposal

should say so: it could mean the matrix should be trusted and the document's own References section is what's incomplete (the more common pattern per the file's own analysis), or it could mean the matrix genuinely over-credits the use case and should drop the row. Don't default to "the document is right, fix the matrix" without checking which is actually more plausible for this specific case.

Step 2 — Ground the proposal in the actual source text

For an own-only correction, quote the specific line from the use case's own References section (knowledge/use-cases/{ID}/{ID}.md) that names the component the matrix is missing — a correction proposal needs a citable source, not just "the discrepancy file says so." For a matrix-only correction, check whether the component appears anywhere else in the document's body (per the same body-text-vs-frontmatter gap generate-test-cases-from-usecase documents) before concluding the matrix is simply wrong — a component named in body prose but missed by docx2md.py's References-section-only extraction isn't a matrix error at all, it's a frontmatter extraction gap, and the correction should say that distinction explicitly rather than blaming the matrix.

matrix-discrepancies.md itself is hand-maintained and isn't rebuilt by any refresh script the way components.json/apis.json are — it reflects the corpus as of whenever it was last regenerated, not necessarily its current state. Reading the live use case document for this step also catches document-side drift: if its own References section no longer contains the id the table logged as own-only, that id has since been removed from the document itself, and the table entry is stale — say so explicitly rather than drafting a correction to add an id the document no longer even claims. This check only covers the document's side, not the matrix's — usecase-component-matrix.json is extracted from IG1228 separately and isn't re-derived by this skill, so a matrix-side change since the table was built wouldn't be caught here.

Step 3 — Flag both-direction cases as needing human judgment, not an automatic pick

A use case with entries in both the own-only and matrix-only columns (disagreement in both directions) doesn't have an obvious "correct" answer — don't pick one side and propose only that half. State both findings and say explicitly that a human reviewer needs to decide, rather than resolving the ambiguity unilaterally.

Output format

One correction entry per use case, each with: the use case id, the specific TMFCxxx id(s) involved, which direction (add-to-matrix / remove-from-matrix / needs-human-review), and the citable source text backing the proposal. Group by direction so a reviewer can process all the "add to matrix" proposals together, separately from the "needs review" ones.

What this skill does NOT do

• Does not submit anything to TM Forum or edit knowledge/index/usecase-component-matrix.json directly — this drafts a proposal for a human working-group member to take forward, it doesn't act as if the correction were already accepted.
• Does not resolve a both-direction disagreement by picking the side that seems more likely — Step 3's flag is required output for those cases, not an optional caveat.
• Does not propose a correction without a citable source line — "the discrepancy file logs it" is not itself a citable source for a correction proposal; the source is the use case document's own text.