← Back to courses
T1ENS4 · 8/15 (Sat)

Wukong Breaks Out of the Stone

★★★★ Vision

📋 Key Takeaways

  • Central thesis: Model is Mine + Data is Mine — two constitutional laws delivered tonight, written into the first rule of WukongDojo
  • Real vs fake agent watershed: where does intelligence enter — hard-coded if/else is a fake agent, only when Wukong decides at each node is it a real agent
  • Universal agent loop: Receive → Recall → Reason → Act → Remember — every agent runs this same circle, your Little Wukong is the same tier as ChatGPT
  • 12-model whitelist: from $0.03 floor to $5 frontier, 1000× spread — you pick by task, default to floor, upgrade in one click
  • Live Lab: build two agents on WukongDojo with different scripts — same question, see how script design changes the output
  • Become Wukong · You Can — Big Wukong awakens · Little Wukong is born · today

🎬 Video Replay

Video links coming soon

📝 Course Notes

Expand full notes
# Session 4 · Build Your Agent — Agentic Flow, My Model My Choice, My Data My Control

**Trait: Vision.** Today: your script stops being a monologue and becomes an **Agentic Flow** — a loop that actually moves someone from A to B.

## Part 1 · From script to Agentic Flow

S3 gave you one continuous script — a 5-part System Prompt. That's a monologue: the model reads it once and answers once. An **Agentic Flow** is different: it's the sequence of decisions Wukong makes, turn by turn, to carry a real person from where they arrive to where they need to land.

- **A script printer isn't an agent.** An agent is a script printer running inside a loop that tracks state and knows when to advance.
- **Every unit of the loop needs a "done" test.** Step, question type, or session move — whichever shape yours takes, if you can't say in one sentence when it's done, it isn't a unit, it's a topic.
- **Topics never reach an endpoint.** Only closing criteria do.

## Part 2 · Three shapes an agent can take

- **A — Goal-driven closed loop**: takes someone from A to B in one session, ends in a concrete deliverable.
- **B — Knowledge Q&A**: catches a question, answers from a proprietary corpus, and — critically — knows what it must refuse and where to redirect.
- **C — Companion / coaching**: walks alongside someone across a session (and across many sessions), with a hard ESCALATION line to hand off to a real human.

Pick one. Grading — and design — follows the dialect of whichever you declare.

## Part 3 · My Model, My Choice

The model underneath your agent is a decision, not a default. WukongDojo lets you swap it — cheap and fast for routine turns, frontier for the hard ones, open-weight when you want the compute (and the data) to stay in your hands. Your script's job doesn't change; the model running it is yours to pick.

## Part 4 · My Data, My Control

The grounding rule from S3 ("answer only from `<knowledge>`, or say you don't know") is what keeps your agent honest. S4 extends it: every unit of your Agentic Flow needs its own slice of proprietary knowledge — the pushback lines only you've heard, the case notes only you have, the boundary table that keeps a Q&A agent from overstepping. That knowledge stays yours; the model just reads it.

## Lab · Compare two scripts

1. Build two agents from the same base script, same model, same question.
2. Change only the script — one Iron Law, one line, one tone shift.
3. Compare the two answers on reasoning depth, attention to detail, and whose "voice" survived.

**Same model. Same question. Your script edits are the only variable.**

## Homework

- **HW1 (warm-up, not submitted):** build two agents from the same S3 script with two small edits — compare the outputs, see how much control your script actually has.
- **HW2 (submit · `S4-VISION` · due Sat 5/16 9 AM PT, before S5):** declare your agent's category (A/B/C), break your script into 3-7 units, and for each unit write the sub-goal, steering strategy, observable closing criterion, and a dialog with real pushback + recovery. Then list the proprietary knowledge each unit needs. See the S4 Homework Guide in materials for full details, templates, and grading rubric.

Next: **S5 — we take your refined script and feed it into a real knowledge base.** Come with HW2 done; there's nothing to refine in S5 if you show up empty-handed.

✏️ Homework

HW1 (warm-up · no submission): build two agents on WukongDojo with different scripts (system prompts) — same question, see how script design changes the output. HW2 (submit · Golden Hoop 4 · Vision): refine the S3 Little Wukong script into a goal-driven step screenplay. ⚠️ Step 0: declare ONE agent category (A/B/C): · A Goal-driven closer (sell / negotiate / decide / advise — take customer from A to B) · B Knowledge Q&A (RAG / domain expert — answer any in-scope question with citations) · C Companion / coaching (long-term relationship, multi-session — walk WITH the user) TOOL EXECUTOR agents (code/API/system ops) are NOT graded this session — that's a later topic. ① Overall goal four things (FILL PER YOUR DECLARED CATEGORY): A=WHO·WHEN·WHAT·DONE-WHEN; B=WHO·SCOPE·OUT-OF-SCOPE·DONE-WHEN; C=WHO·CADENCE·SESSION-ARC·ESCALATION ② Break into 3-7 units (A=steps; B=question types; C=session moves) ③ Each unit has four elements: 🎯 sub-goal + 🛠 leading move + ✅ observable completion signal + 🗣 dialog (with PUSHBACK/OUT-OF-SCOPE/RESISTANCE + agent's boundary-preserving response) ④ 📚 proprietary knowledge: answers "where does ChatGPT crash on this step". In S5 we feed this together.

⏰ Deadline: 8/22 Sat 9:00 AM PT

→ Submit homework (ENS4-VISION)
🤖 AI Grading Rubric
Dimension Weight Description
Overall goal specificity 10% High when at least 3 of WHO · WHEN · WHAT · DONE-WHEN are specified; DONE-WHEN credits even if not maximally observable, as long as it names what the customer leaves with. A stranger being able to roughly say "agent helps X do Z" is the floor
Flow decomposition 15% High when broken into 3-7 units AND most units read as advancing customer state (sub-goals); one or two topic-leaning units are fine. Deduct only when fewer than 3 (one-shot fantasy) or more than 7 (workflow software not agent)
Sub-goal + leading move 20% High when each step names a 🎯 sub-goal plus 🛠 some concrete technique (question phrasing, sequencing, anchoring, evidence move — any of these). Does NOT require "order cannot swap" precision. Only "ask nicely / listen patiently / be professional" is low
Observable closing criterion 20% High when MOST steps have an ✅ closing criterion that includes at least one observable element (specific answer, data point, confirmation action). "Customer confirms X" is fine without verbatim line. Only deduct heavily when ALL steps rely on unobservable internal states ("felt understood", "vibe was right")
Dialog + pushback re-lead 15% High when AT LEAST 2-3 steps have real dialog (1 line each from agent and customer) AND AT LEAST 1 step shows customer pushback with agent's boundary-preserving response. NOT required for every step to have a perfect pushback-re-lead
Knowledge proprietary 20% High when 📚 knowledge list shows DOMAIN SPECIFICITY (names concrete things ChatGPT does not know in this niche). Directly attachable as .md is a bonus, NOT a gate. Only deduct heavily when everything is generic ("needs financial knowledge", "needs communication skills") without a domain name

90-100 Every step has sub-goal + leading move + closing criterion; agent re-leads back after pushback; knowledge directly feedable in S5 · 60-89 Main steps have sub-goals and closing criteria; leading moves and pushback re-leads occasionally missing · 40-59 Steps written but sub-goals vague, closing criteria missing or unobservable · 20-39 Steps are topics not sub-goals; cannot tell when to advance · 1-19 Nearly empty or entirely ChatGPT one-click output