School Form Translation Pairing
Find where your translated notices and originals disagree.
School administration
Bring conflicting details in your authorized pickup list and current requests into one review.
A downloadable skill for your AI agent.
Conflicting instructions for staff review.
Source references, missing information, and questions to review stay with the findings.
Open your download and follow the start guide. Use an AI agent that can load skill files and run the included tools.
Authorized pickup list and current requests. Confirm the case and period you want to check.
Copy the request below into your agent. Add the files and any task details it needs.
Check the findings against the original records. Choose where to save the report and follow up on open questions.
Use the Student Pickup Authorization Conflict skill. Review the attached records: authorized pickup list and current requests. Prepare this result: conflicting instructions for staff review. Include a source reference for each finding. List missing information and questions that need my review. Ask me to confirm the scope and where to save the report before you start.
It groups statements about the same item. Different values stay visible together, with their original sources.
Authorized pickup list and current requests.
For this task, keep one review row for each student + pickup instruction. Record approved person, current request, and conflicting authority. Keep the source location beside each value.
Use school-approved rosters and checklists. Distinguish a payment from consent, attendance from booking, and a request from an approved arrangement.
Preserve pickup permissions and contact versions. Report missing evidence to staff rather than making participation decisions.
The engine does not decide which source has authority. Establish that from supplied records and flag unresolved authority.
This synthetic example shows the included check in use. Your agent uses its findings to complete your task report.
Synthetic example records
| Sample record | approved person: assertion-A |
|---|---|
| Sample record | approved person: assertion-B |
A difference needs review
This result comes from the checking tool in your download.
These are synthetic records from the bundled example.
{"id": "r1", "key": "student + pickup instruction / SYNTHETIC-001", "value": {"approved person": "assertion-A"}}{"id": "r2", "key": "student + pickup instruction / SYNTHETIC-001", "value": {"approved person": "assertion-B"}}After purchase, extract the ZIP. Run these commands from the skill folder. Use a new output folder.
python3 scripts/checks.py
python3 scripts/audit.py assets/example.json \
--files-root assets/sample-files --output-dir example-result
Expected exit code: 1. Code 0 means no helper finding. Code 1 means a finding or review item. Code 2 means incomplete or invalid input.
The check uses the records you supply. Review each finding against the original documents.
Ask your agent to save the completed task report in a folder you choose. The report template includes the result, source references, missing information, and next actions.
Tonotes does not receive your work documents through this website. Documents you share with an AI service follow that service's storage settings.
US$11 includes one skill in a ZIP with 18 files. You receive the instructions and tools to run the task with your own records.
Use an agent that supports SKILL.md instructions and Python 3.10 or later with SQLite. Your AI-agent service is separate.
Start with authorized pickup list and current requests. Confirm the case, period, and source versions before the review.
Use student ID, event ID, form version, roster date to keep records distinct. The agent records the original value, an exact quote, and the source location.
Group records by item and identify different supplied values. Run the Python helper on the structured records. Check each finding against its source.
Prepare the task result: conflicting instructions for staff review. Include missing evidence, unresolved questions, and the next action for each open item.
Eight synthetic cases check the tool locally. Live-agent accuracy on real documents has not been tested.