agentleFS
DidierRLopesDidierRLopes/openbb-workspace-bench/.claude/skills/workspace-bench-tasks-orchestrator/SKILL.md

workspace-bench-tasks-orchestrator

Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Coordinate the authoring of workspace_tasks stories - spawn one task-author subagent per story (each pipelines its own per-level validators), trigger the ladder fairness check, relay flags, and stop for the user's review after each completed persona. Use when asked to author or extend the workspace_tasks suite.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When a persona's last story goes green (all 4 stories × 5 levels = 20 tasks), run the calibration gate before counting the persona done:

    line 27

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Orchestrating story authoring

You are the coordinator, not the author. You never write task files yourself — you spawn agents that do, and you run the loop between them.

The unit of work: one story = one author subagent

For each story, spawn one subagent with the task-author skill and this brief: the persona folder (task_templates/<persona>/README.md), the story file, and full access to src/workspace_bench/data/. That agent writes all five levels in its one session — never split a story across agents; the story's facts staying in one working memory is what keeps the five tasks consistent.

Sequencing rule

Personas are delivered one at a time (each ends at the user's review), and stories run sequentially within the persona — one author in flight. Authors certify with --family <persona> (and --difficulty level<N> per level), so a validation run never sees half-written sibling files.

The loop per story

  1. Spawn the author. It writes the five levels sequentially in one session — and pipelines validation itself: after each level certifies (--family <persona> --difficulty level<N>), it dispatches a background task-validator subagent on that one task and keeps writing. It fixes validator flags as they arrive and finishes with a full-family certification. You do not manage the per-level validators — the author does.
  2. When the author reports green and validator-quiet, trigger the task-level-fairness check — a fresh subagent judging the five files side by side: graded facts constant across levels, each level's signature present (and absent below it), difficulty pointing upward, five distinct asks. This is the check that only fires when a full level-per-task ladder exists.
  3. Relay fairness FLAG lines back to the same author agent (continue its session — it still holds the story context) rather than spawning a new fixer. It repairs, re-certifies, and re-runs any per-task validation its fixes require.
  4. Re-run fairness on the changed ladder. The story is done when certification is green and both checkers are quiet.

The persona calibration gate

When a persona's last story goes green (all 4 stories × 5 levels = 20 tasks), run the calibration gate before counting the persona done:

uv run python scripts/audits/calibrate_workspace_tasks.py --persona <persona>

It runs gpt-4.1-mini over the persona's tasks with 3 repeats (12 attempts per level - the sample is small, hence the repeats), checks the staircase level0 >= level1 >= ... >= level4 (ties allowed), and records the curve in runs/reports/workspace-tasks-calibration.json. A non-zero exit is a gate failure: diagnose before proceeding — a task failing level0 on every repeat is a defect fingerprint (route it back to its story's author), while a single mid-ladder wobble at this sample size may be noise (note it for the persona review, don't tune content toward the curve). Once all six personas are recorded, --aggregate writes the pooled per-level comparison across personas to runs/reports/workspace-tasks-calibration.md.

Dead levels: a 0% rung is a question, not a result

A gate can PASS with levels at 0% (ties at the floor are allowed) — but a dead level must be explained before the persona is called done. The gating model's zero tells you nothing by itself: it cannot distinguish "honestly hard" from "impossible". Investigate every 0% level:

  1. Transcript diagnosis first. Pull the failing episodes' tool calls and failure codes. Failures scattering across distinct modes per story lean honest; identical near-miss failures (high checks-passed, one repeated missing check) are the over-pinning fingerprint.
  2. Frontier probe. Run one or two of the dead level's tasks as single live episodes with a strong model (the suite's arbiter, e.g. GPT-5.5 — single episodes, never a full run). A frontier pass proves the level is reachable and honestly hard. A frontier failure by one or two checks almost always means a task defect — read the transcript and find which valid route the eval refuses to credit.
  3. Close the loop with validation. Task feasibility validation exists precisely to answer "could this be solved?" — so when calibration contradicts it, re-run the task-validator on the dead tasks WITH the probe transcript attached as evidence: fresh eyes plus what actually happened. Fix the task (never the grader, never the level labels), add the lesson to the task-author skill, re-certify, and re-run the calibration so the staircase claim holds on the shipped content.

Precedent from the pilot: level 4 sat at 0% for the gating model; the frontier probe passed level 3 outright and missed level 4 by exactly one check — an instantiate call pinned to app_name when the model used an equally valid template_id it had discovered. Task fixed, rule recorded, re-probe passed 74/74. The zero was half honest difficulty, half a defect only a live run could expose.

Persona review gates

The unit of delivery is the persona: four stories, the calibration gate, done. When a persona completes: run certification over the whole suite dir, tally coverage (origins, skills, parameter types, widget types touched), and stop for the user's review — sample tasks, the persona's staircase, coverage tally, anything that fought the gates. Never start the next persona without their go. The first persona (portfolio_manager) is the pilot: it proves the whole pipeline before any other persona begins.

What you watch for

  • An author burning multiple fix rounds on the same task — read the failures yourself; it may be a story problem (facts wrong) rather than an authoring problem, which means fixing the story file, not the tasks.
  • Validator flags that indict the guidelines (a rule two authors both got wrong) — fix the skill, not just the task, and note it for the persona review.
  • Scope creep: authors edit only their own story's files; nothing outside tasksets/workspace_tasks/ and never the live suites.
  • Name collisions: task ids are <story>_level<N> with no persona in them, so story names must be unique across all personas, not just within one. Check before spawning an author; at each persona review also scan for duplicate ids and duplicate prompts across the whole suite.
  • Commits: a story is committed only after it is fully green (certification + validator + fairness), one commit per story or per persona — never mid-loop.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.