{"id":76455,"plugin_id":"plugin_asdk_app_6ad61143c49c8191941ab91d243863e7","kind":"skill","collection_source":"plugin_package","comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-11-02T18:12:24.527Z","digest":"ef3ff0598c0b465e4196482cb3b2b5ff547e35264b4758c0e98bdb6bc9be2274","against":null,"payload":{"description":"What happened on this case and why","included_files":[],"name":"case-timeline","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: case-timeline\ndescription: 'What happened on this case and why'\nmetadata:\n  title: 'Case Timeline'\n  category: cases\n  order: '3'\n  plugin: 'true'\n---\n\nNo case in context: ask which case, or find it with query_entities, before anything else. Explain this case's history. 1. Rebuild the chronology: entities created, template applied, checks created, results, reviews and decisions, communications, status and risk changes, controls. 2. For every step name the actor and its nature — a person, the API, the automation engine acting on a template rule, the portal contact, the system. Never state that something happened without saying what caused it. 3. Then answer the negative questions, which are the ones people actually ask: why a check was never created (which rule matched or did not, on which attribute), why the case was not auto-approved (which condition failed), why a step came late. 4. Where the record does not explain something, say so rather than constructing a plausible reason. An honest gap is useful; an invented cause is not. 5. Close with a short answer to my actual question, above the timeline.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}