# Pull Request Template
## Description
Fixes: https://github.com/chatwoot/chatwoot/issues/13880
Uses approaches discussed from:
https://github.com/chatwoot/chatwoot/pull/13883
Activity messages pertaining to resolve are included along with an
instruction for the LLM to choose whether to consider them or not along
## Type of change
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
locally and with specs
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
---------
Co-authored-by: Sony Mathew <sony@chatwoot.com>
Improves Captain V1 → V2 migration for complex legacy instructions so
mandatory triggers, workflows, language rules, and escalation behavior
remain active while query-dependent product knowledge is prepared as
pending FAQ candidates.
## What changed
- Added explicit preservation rules for mandatory triggers, verification
steps, escalation conditions, exceptions, and language behavior.
- Added an auditor that checks the draft and fixes any issues before
manual review.
- Kept the existing migration application contract and schema limits
unchanged
- Added focused regression coverage for the complex-prompt classifier
contract.
## How to reproduce
Generate a migration draft for an assistant with dense legacy
instructions containing mandatory handoff triggers, verification rules,
product facts, and multi-step workflows. The resulting draft should keep
actions active, place query-dependent facts in FAQ candidates, and avoid
silently dropping or reversing source requirements.
Focused Captain migration specs and RuboCop checks pass locally.
Ensures Captain follows explicit mandatory-transfer rules from active
Response Guidelines and Guardrails instead of allowing the generic
consent-first fallback to override those rules.
## What changed
- Made explicit transfer requirements take precedence over generic
consent-first handoff defaults only when their condition matches.
- Added explicit Response Guideline and Guardrail transfer rules to the
human-handoff protocol.
- Added focused prompt regression coverage.
## How to reproduce
Configure a Response Guideline or Guardrail that requires immediate
transfer for a specific condition, then send a request matching that
condition. Captain should invoke the human-handoff path without asking
the user to consent again. Unmatched requests continue to use the
existing consent-first fallback.
The assistant prompt renderer, agent prompt context, and focused
regression specs pass locally.
# Pull Request Template
## Description
Please include a summary of the change and issue(s) fixed. Also, mention
relevant motivation, context, and any dependencies that this change
requires.
Fixes
https://linear.app/chatwoot/issue/AI-136/check-conversation-status-while-auto-resolving
- After 60mins of inactivity, we run a job that decides if pending
conversations are resolvable or need handoff
- the prompt was a bit conservative and didn't have conversation state
context
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
locally ran a sample eval
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
---------
Co-authored-by: Sony Mathew <sony@chatwoot.com>
This PR adds internal tooling and planning docs for migrating existing
Captain assistant instructions into the new General Guidelines
structure.
**Summary**
This PR adds a controlled migration path for moving existing Captain V1
assistant instructions into the structured Captain architecture.
It introduces a classifier that reads the current `config.instructions`
and produces reviewed migration drafts with separate sections for:
- assistant description / business context
- response guidelines
- guardrails
- scenario candidates
- conversation messages
- FAQ/document candidates
- needs-review items
The migration is intentionally staged. It only targets V1-style
assistants that still have custom instructions, are connected to
inboxes, and do not already have structured response guidelines,
guardrails, or scenario records.
When applied, the task writes the extracted business context to the
assistant description, response guidelines to `response_guidelines`,
guardrails to `guardrails`, and stores scenario candidates / FAQ
candidates / review notes under `config["assistant_migration"]`.
Scenario candidates are also flattened into response guidelines for now
so customer behavior is preserved before we create real
`Captain::Scenario` records in a later rollout.
The applier stores the original assistant values under migration
metadata so conversation message config can be restored if needed. It
does not create scenario records yet.
**How to generate drafts**
For specific assistant IDs:
```bash
bundle exec rake captain:assistant_migration:generate \
IDS=546,636,819 \
LIMIT=0 \
OUTPUT=tmp/captain_migration_drafts.jsonl
```
For the first 50 eligible assistants:
```bash
bundle exec rake captain:assistant_migration:generate \
OUTPUT=tmp/captain_migration_drafts.jsonl
```
For all eligible assistants:
```bash
bundle exec rake captain:assistant_migration:generate \
LIMIT=0 \
OUTPUT=tmp/captain_migration_drafts.jsonl
```
**How to apply drafts**
Dry run first:
```bash
bundle exec rake captain:assistant_migration:apply \
INPUT=tmp/captain_migration_drafts.jsonl \
DRY_RUN=true
```
Apply changes:
```bash
bundle exec rake captain:assistant_migration:apply \
INPUT=tmp/captain_migration_drafts.jsonl \
DRY_RUN=false
```
**How to restore conversation messages**
If extracted `welcome_message`, `handoff_message`, or
`resolution_message` need to be reverted to their pre-migration values:
```bash
bundle exec rake captain:assistant_migration:restore_messages \
IDS=546,636,819 \
DRY_RUN=true
```
```bash
bundle exec rake captain:assistant_migration:restore_messages \
IDS=546,636,819 \
DRY_RUN=false
```
**Notes**
- `LIMIT=0` means no limit.
- `generate` overwrites the output file.
- The apply task skips assistants that are no longer V1 migration
candidates.
- This PR does not create `Captain::Scenario` records; scenario
candidates are staged in assistant config for a future migration.
---------
Co-authored-by: Muhsin <12408980+muhsin-k@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: aakashb95 <aakashbakhle@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aakash Bakhle <48802744+aakashb95@users.noreply.github.com>
# Pull Request Template
## Description
Tightens v2 prompt and config to match v1
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
locally
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
# Pull Request Template
## Description
The initial version of prompt deciding to resolve or hand-off to human
agents was too conservative especially in cases where a link or an
action was told to customer. If the customer didn't respond, Captain was
told to hand it off to the agent, but customer may actually have solved
the issue. If not, they can come back and continue the conversation.
Removed two lines about the same and now we should not see needless
handoffs.
## Type of change
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
locally
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
# Pull Request Template
## Description
For our account, the conversation completion evaluator was proving to be
too conservative. This resulted in queue noise.
This PR adds a line to handle gibberish/single worded messages with no
further context.
## Type of change
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
<img width="3012" height="978" alt="CleanShot 2026-03-23 at 11 44 55@2x"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/328195e8-6ea0-4c3a-9049-ee80196eecad"
/>
<img width="2202" height="866" alt="CleanShot 2026-03-23 at 11 47 15@2x"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8d51cff4-b18f-4582-9455-8119ec7eff3a"
/>
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
# Pull Request Template
## Description
captain decides if conversation should be resolved or open
Fixes
https://linear.app/chatwoot/issue/AI-91/make-captain-resolution-time-configurable
Update: Added 2 entries in reporting events:
`conversation_captain_handoff` and `conversation_captain_resolved`
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [x] This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide
instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details
for your test configuration.
LLM call decides that conversation is resolved, drops a private note
<img width="1228" height="438" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fb2cf1e9-4b2b-458b-a1e2-45c53d6a0158"
/>
LLM call decides conversation is still open as query was not resolved
<img width="1215" height="573" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2d1d5322-f567-487e-954e-11ab0798d11c"
/>
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
---------
Co-authored-by: Sojan Jose <sojan@pepalo.com>
