Code and Change Review Assistance for Office System Process Configuration: Multi-turn Dialogue and Prompt Engineering

Core data for office system process configuration comes from OA systems, organizational structures, internal policy documents, and user feedback.

This configuration applies to FastGPT v4.17.0.

What the data for this category looks like

Core data for office system process configuration comes from OA systems, organizational structures, internal policy documents, and user feedback. Maintained documents include process configuration sheets, approval node tables, form field descriptions, and change records. Data updates trigger when process changes occur, with no fixed cycle. Data fields include approval node identifiers, permission scopes, form configuration items, and linked policy entries. There are no unified standardized statistical units; field content is defined based on actual process configuration requirements.

Constraints These Characteristics Impose on Multi-turn Dialogue and Prompt Engineering

Since data updates alongside process changes, dialogue context must strictly link to the unique identifier of the current process. This prevents invalid cross-process context interference. Decentralized document structures require prompts to guide models to prioritize using category-specific documents when generating content. The lack of fixed statistical units for data means dialogue must clearly define the business meaning of fields. This avoids generating content that does not match actual configurations. Additionally, errors in process configuration can cause approval blockages. Dialogue fault tolerance and verification mechanisms must adapt to the strict requirements of internal data.

How to Set Configurations

Configuration ItemRecommended PracticeRationale
chatIdBind to the unique identifier of the current process changeAssociate dialogue history with the corresponding process, avoid cross-process context confusion
messagesRetain the last 3 interactions plus context from linked process documentsAdapt to the low update frequency of process configuration data, reduce invalid context overhead
variablesReference built-in fields from process configuration sheets and approval node tablesDirectly use category-specific data to generate configuration suggestions, improve content accuracy
LLM temperature0.2–0.4Process configuration requires rigor, prevent generating content that violates internal policies
Plugin call timeout600 secondsAdapt to the time required for process configuration testing and verification, avoid early interaction termination

Three Common Misconfigurations

  • Historical questions cannot be retrieved after multiple prompts. The cause is failing to bind chatId to the unique identifier of the process change. This leaves dialogue history unlinked to the corresponding process configuration data.
  • No temperature setting button appears when selecting variables to reference the LLM. The cause is failing to bind adjustable parameter configuration items for the model via variables. A fixed-parameter model interface is called directly.
  • Database connection plugin calls throw errors after configuration, and dialogue response time exceeds 600 seconds. The cause is failing to configure permission verification rules for the plugin. It also fails to limit the data volume of a single query, causing internal data request blockages.

How to Verify Successful Configuration

  • Initiate a test prompt. Check if previous interaction content is retained in the dialogue history to confirm chatId binding is active.
  • Enter the LLM configuration interface. Check if a temperature parameter setting entry appears to confirm variables are correctly linked.
  • Call the database connection plugin to run a process data query. Check if expected results are returned and time meets the preset requirements.
  • Initiate multiple consecutive prompts. Check if each reply is based on the current process’s configuration documents to confirm context association is correct.

The provided values are common starting points. They should be evaluated using samples from the specific use case context.

Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-10-19.