[Feature] Add WFGY 16-problem taxonomy as an agentic debugging guide

[onestardao]

Hi and thanks for adept-agentic-framework-core.

I am the maintainer of WFGY, an MIT-licensed framework that summarizes 16 common failure modes for RAG systems and multi-agent LLM pipelines into a compact “problem map”:

• WFGY ProblemMap (RAG and agents): https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY/blob/main/ProblemMap/README.md

The WFGY repo sits at around 1.5k GitHub stars, and the problem map has already been referenced by:

• Harvard MIMS Lab ToolUniverse
• QCRI / HBKU LLM Lab Multimodal RAG Survey
• University of Innsbruck Rankify

Since adept-agentic-framework-core focuses on benchmarking generative models and LLM-centric workloads on HPC systems, I think it could be useful to expose WFGY’s failure taxonomy as a qualitative axis in addition to existing performance metrics.

---

What problem this feature would solve

adept-agentic-framework-core gives users a way to measure:

• latency and throughput,
• hardware utilization,
• and scalability of LLM workloads.

However, when those workloads involve RAG or agentic reasoning, users also care about:

• which kind of reasoning failures appear under resource pressure,
• whether some configurations are more prone to specific failure types,
• and how failure patterns change when scaling models / hardware.

WFGY’s 16-problem map offers a light-weight vocabulary for issues such as:

• retrieval drift vs. retrieval void,
• multi-step reasoning collapse,
• inconsistent tool calls across parallel traces,
• or context trimming that silently drops critical evidence.

Surfacing this vocabulary in adept-agentic-framework-core would help users interpret performance results in terms of tension between speed / cost and failure profile.

---

Proposed solution

A minimal integration could include:

1. Short documentation page

   • “Interpreting RAG / agent workloads with WFGY 16-problem map”.
   • One table listing the 16 failure modes and examples of adept-agentic-framework-core workloads where they might show up.

2. Tagging guidance

   • Suggestions on how users can:
     • tag their adept-agentic-framework-core runs with WFGY problem IDs (e.g. in metadata or log filenames),
     • and record observed failure counts per problem in their own analysis scripts.

3. Optional example notebook

   • A small notebook showing:
     • a RAG-style benchmark run,
     • manual or semi-automatic tagging of a subset of outputs by WFGY problem type,
     • and a simple plot relating failure-type frequencies to hardware / config choices.

This keeps adept-agentic-framework-core neutral and flexible, while giving users an easy, MIT-licensed taxonomy if they want one.

---

Alternatives considered

• Leaving failure-mode vocabularies entirely to each project.
• Introducing a bespoke adept-agentic-framework-core-only taxonomy.

Both options make it harder to compare results or share lessons across teams. Re-using an existing taxonomy that is already referenced in other LLM tooling seems lower-friction.

---

Willingness to contribute

If this seems aligned with adept-agentic-framework-core’s goals, I would be glad to:

• draft the docs page and example notebook,
• and open a PR so you can review and adjust scope / terminology.

All WFGY content is MIT-licensed, so you can freely adapt or trim it as needed.