circular delegation in `RepresentativeAction`

[ThomasBreuer]

Looking at the code of RepresentativeAction, one finds that the following will happen.

gap> G:= SymmetricGroup( 3 );;
gap> gens:= Pcgs(G );;
gap> acts:= ShallowCopy( gens );;
gap> RepresentativeAction( G, [ 1 .. 3 ], 1, 2, gens, acts, OnPoints );
Error, recursion depth trap (5000) in
[...]

Moreover

gap> RepresentativeAction( G, [ 1 .. 3 ], 1, 2, ShallowCopy( gens ), acts, OnPoints );
Error, need to factor -- not yet implemented at /.../lib/oprt.gi:130 called from
act( pnt, g ) at /.../lib/oprt.gi:2137 called from
[...]

Apparently nobody has ever tried to use RepresentativeAction in these two situations.
From the viewpoint of #6178, one could get the idea to construct a homomorphism between the groups generated by gens and acts, respectively, to create a new action in terms of gens only, and to use this action to compute the RepresentativeAction result via an orbit-stabilizer computation, but wouldn't it then make more sense to avoid working with different gens/acts?

I would say that the gens/acts feature is not really suitable for RepresentativeAction.
The same holds for Permutation.
Having different gens/acts makes sense whenever one needs just the action of the generators, like in Orbit.
Is there anything besides Orbit for which the gens/acts feature is suitable?