Report generation
ReportAgent is the reporting layer in the MiroFish workflow. It should connect what happened in the simulation with evidence, assumptions, risks, and follow-up analysis rather than simply writing a polished summary.
A ReportAgent page should answer a practical question: what happens after agents interact? In MiroFish, the report layer reads simulation state, compares branches, highlights disagreement, and explains what a human should verify next.
The report is not valuable because it sounds confident. It is valuable when it preserves the path from seed material to graph construction, agent behavior, scenario branches, and the next analysis question.
Use these steps to move from a broad phrase to a reviewable scenario, report, or clarification.
ReportAgent should know which simulated events and agent reactions shaped each finding.
A useful report makes speculation visible instead of hiding it inside fluent prose.
The strongest report shows which personas or actor groups diverged and why.
A report should end with the next scenario to test, not with false certainty.
Draft the first MiroFish run on this page before opening a workspace.
These checkpoints keep the page tightly matched to the exact search phrase while staying useful for a real MiroFish run.
Think of ReportAgent as an editor with a ledger beside it. Its job is to turn event traces, persona responses, branch changes, and graph references into a document that can be questioned. The writing should be clear, but the structure matters more than polish: a reader needs to know which finding came from which evidence trail.
A strong report layer separates narrative from proof. It can say that a branch gained momentum, but it should also show the simulated actions that created that branch, the roles that disagreed, and the weak assumptions that would change the conclusion. That makes the output easier to review in a meeting because teammates can argue over evidence instead of style.
Use ReportAgent when the run already happened and the team needs a structured handoff. Do not use it as a prompt generator before the source packet is ready. The report stage should inherit context from the run, expose uncertainty, and leave the reader with a short queue of follow-up questions.
Before acting on a MiroFish output, check whether the scenario stayed inside the question you asked. The most useful output for this page is: A structured MiroFish report: executive summary, scenario branches, evidence notes, role divergence, risks, assumptions, and follow-up questions. The key limit is equally important: ReportAgent can summarize weak simulation input beautifully. Review the source material and event log before using a report for action.
Use these checkpoints to turn the first MiroFish result into a grounded next action.
The video starts with the homepage, shows seed material upload, moves through graph construction and agent setup, and ends with a professional report screen.
These images come from the notepad MiroFish image set and are used as concrete workflow references rather than decoration.
After a launch simulation, ReportAgent may show that early adopters like the feature story while procurement personas worry about evidence. That split becomes a concrete follow-up: add proof material and rerun the scenario.
The value of the page is practical: define the job, prepare the right input, read the output with its limits visible, and choose a next step that can be checked outside the page.
Read a MiroFish report as a map of assumptions and reactions. Mark source-backed claims, uncertain claims, and follow-up questions separately. Then choose one change for the next run instead of accepting the first report as final.
Use the table to decide what belongs in the page, what belongs in MiroFish, and what still needs outside verification.
| Part | What it means | Why it helps | Check before acting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive summary | Main paths and decision relevance | Helps readers orient quickly | Should not hide caveats |
| Evidence notes | Source and event references | Keeps the report inspectable | Review before action |
| Role divergence | Where simulated groups disagree | Shows why one average answer is weak | Check persona setup |
| Follow-up queue | Questions for the next run | Turns reading into action | Change one assumption at a time |
These related MiroFish pages keep the workflow connected from the homepage to the current topic and back into action.
Continue the MiroFish workflow with this related guide.
Open guideContinue the MiroFish workflow with this related guide.
Open guideContinue the MiroFish workflow with this related guide.
Open guideContinue the MiroFish workflow with this related guide.
Open guideShort answers for readers who need the useful boundary before opening a MiroFish workspace.
It is best understood as the reporting layer of the MiroFish simulation workflow.
Traceable findings, visible assumptions, and concrete follow-up questions.
No. It organizes analysis so humans can inspect and decide more carefully.