FlowMind: Execute-Summarize for Structured Workflow Generation from LLM Reasoning

# Research Integration: FlowMind: Execute-Summarize for Structured Workflow Generation from LLM Reasoning

## Your Mission

Create a new branch and develop a detailed implementation plan for integrating this research idea into the codebase. Do NOT implement yet — focus on understanding, planning, and identifying risks.

## Branch Setup

```bash
git checkout -b experiment/flowmind-execute-summarize-for-structured-workflow
```

## The Research

**Paper**: [FlowMind: Execute-Summarize for Structured Workflow Generation from LLM Reasoning](https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11782)
**PDF**: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.11782

**Core Achievement**:
Achieved a 15.4% improvement in workflow generation accuracy by decoupling reasoning from structural execution.

**Why This Matters for carlcrm**:
This pattern allows users to perform 'messy' spreadsheet edits via HTMX, which are then summarized into structured relational updates, maintaining DB integrity.

**Suggested Integration Approach**:
Implement a 'bulk update' endpoint in FastAPI that accepts raw text/table data from the HTMX view and uses an LLM to 'summarize' it into a series of structured service calls.

**Estimated Effort**: weekend project

## Strategic Context (Crux)

This paper addresses a deeper strategic problem:
> How can we build systems that provide the structural integrity of a relational database while maintaining the low-friction 'infinite flexibility' of a physical ledger or a spreadsheet?

Consider how this solution might unlock other improvements beyond the immediate tactical goal.

## Model Requirements

**Commercial APIs available**: GPT-4, Claude
**Open-source (local GPU)**: Toolformer, HuggingGPT, SciAgent, UI-TARS, Qwen3-8B

✅ **You can implement this using API calls only** — no local GPU required.

*The paper demonstrates that high-capacity commercial models like Claude can solve the tasks, and the proposed Execute-Summarize framework works via prompting/summarization of execution traces without requiring weight modification.*

**Benchmarks used**: FlowBench

## Your Task: Create the Integration Plan

### Phase 1: Understand the Codebase Context

1. **Identify the integration surface**: Which files/modules would this touch?
2. **Map dependencies**: What existing code would this interact with?
3. **Find similar patterns**: Is there existing code that does something similar we can learn from?

### Phase 2: Design the Integration

Create a detailed plan covering:

1. **Architecture**: How does this fit into the existing system?
2. **Data flow**: What inputs does it need? What outputs does it produce?
3. **Configuration**: What new settings/parameters are needed?
4. **Testing strategy**: How will we validate this works?

### Phase 3: Premortem — What Could Go Wrong?

**Think about this integration failing 2 weeks from now. Why did it fail?**

Consider:
- **Performance**: Could this slow down critical paths?
- **Complexity**: Are we adding too much complexity for the benefit?
- **Maintenance**: Will this be hard to maintain or debug?
- **Dependencies**: Are we adding risky dependencies?
- **Edge cases**: What inputs or states could break this?
- **Rollback**: If this doesn't work, how easily can we revert?

For each risk, note:
- Likelihood (low/medium/high)
- Impact (low/medium/high)
- Mitigation strategy

### Phase 4: Define Success Criteria

Before implementing, define:

1. **Minimum viable test**: What's the simplest way to prove this works?
2. **Quantitative metrics**: What numbers should improve? By how much?
3. **Qualitative checks**: What should "feel" better?
4. **Failure signals**: What would tell us to abandon this approach?

## Output Format

Create a `PLAN.md` file in the repo root with:

```markdown
# Experiment: [Title]

## Summary
[1-2 sentence summary of what we're trying]

## Integration Points
- [ ] File 1: description of changes
- [ ] File 2: description of changes

## Architecture Decision
[Explain the chosen approach and why]

## Risks & Mitigations
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Success Criteria
- [ ] Criterion 1
- [ ] Criterion 2

## Open Questions
- Question 1?
- Question 2?

## Next Steps
1. First implementation step
2. Second implementation step
```

## Important Guidelines

- **Read the paper first** — skim the abstract, intro, and methodology sections
- **Don't over-engineer** — start with the simplest version that could work
- **Preserve optionality** — design so we can easily extend or remove this later
- **Document decisions** — future you will thank present you
- **Ask questions** — if something is unclear, note it rather than assuming

---

*This prompt was generated by DSI (Daily Session Intelligence) to help you systematically explore research ideas.*