workflow
Skill64 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Orchestrate the full development lifecycle from ideation through merge. Sequences 8 stages with gates, dispatches to stage skills, and maintains workflow state.
71 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- zaynram/scholartheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codicis-ai/taskplextheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- notque/vexjoy-agenttheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- raphaeltm/simple-agent-managertheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- menot-you/n-soultheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- DaeSeokSong/oh-my-ouroborostheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use build-keil, can-debug and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
ZhongYechengSkillbuild-keil
当需要通过 Keil MDK 命令行编译嵌入式工程,调用自带脚本解析工程文件、执行构建并定位固件产物时使用。
Also in 3 projects that use this
ZhongYechengSkillcan-debug
当需要调试 CAN 总线通信时使用,支持通过 USB-CAN 适配器监听、发送 CAN 帧和扫描节点。
Also in 3 projects that use this
iPlug2Skillbuild-cmake
Build an iPlug2 plugin project using CMake with Ninja, Xcode, or Visual Studio generators
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +9 more from ZhongYecheng
Other versions71 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 71
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- vercel-labs/open-agents★ 5.8ksame name
- vercel/workflow★ 2.5ksame name
- orangehrm/orangehrm★ 1.1ksame name
- zhinkgit/embeddedskills★ 764same name
- waynesutton/markdown-site★ 628same name
- notque/claude-code-toolkit★ 448same name
- notque/vexjoy-agent★ 448same name
- brianlovin/claude-config★ 376same name
- vercel/vercel-plugin★ 328same name
61 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository102 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- assumptionsSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- Codex-opus-4-6-promptingSkill
- Codex-promptSkill
- mcp-code-modeSkill
- deploy-team-hubSkill
- diagramSkill
- distillSkill
- effect-tsSkill
- escalateSkill
- evalSkill
- experimentSkill
- hddSkill
- hub-auditSkill
- hub-collabSkill
- implementSkill
- knowledgeSkill
- peer-notebook-delivery-guardSkill
- research-taskSkill
- session-reviewSkill
- source-command-hdd-decideSkill
- source-command-hdd-hddSkill
- source-command-hdd-researchSkill
- source-command-hdd-stage-adrSkill
- source-command-hdd-validateSkill
- statusSkill
- supabaseSkill
- synthesizeSkill
- tasteSkill
- teamSkill
- test-suiteSkill
- theseus-protocolSkill
- thoughtbox:debugSkill
- thoughtbox:decisionSkill
- thoughtbox:evolutionSkill
- thoughtbox:knowledge-querySkill
- thoughtbox:onboardSkill
- thoughtbox:refactorSkill
- thoughtbox:researchSkill
- thoughtbox:session-reviewSkill
- thoughtbox-teamSkill
- ulc-loopSkill
- ulysses-protocolSkill
- workflow-brainstormingSkill
- workflow-ideationSkill
- workflow-reflectionSkill
- workflow-revisionSkill
- workflows-compoundSkill
- workflows-planSkill
- workflows-reviewSkill
- workflows-workSkill
- workflow-tournamentSkill
- assumptionsSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- claude-opus-4-6-promptingSkill
- claude-promptSkill
- mcp-code-modeSkill
- deploy-team-hubSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 55 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 29
When invoked, first check for an existing workflow state:
- Distinctive: line 40
Create or confirm the feature branch (per AGENTS.md branch rules)
- Distinctive: line 41
Write the initial state file (see State Schema below)
- Distinctive: line 76
Check gate: Verify the gate conditions for the current stage
- Very specific: line 77
Record artifacts: Update the stage's artifacts in state with file paths
- Distinctive: line 83
If a gate condition is not met after the stage skill returns:
- Distinctive: line 86
Ask whether to retry the stage or skip (with acknowledgment of risk)
- Distinctive: line 87
Do NOT silently advance past a failed gate
- Distinctive: line 91
Stage 4 → 5 (Implementation → Review): Before dispatching review, run the between-stage check:
- Distinctive: line 95
If main has advanced, classify the conflict (no overlap / mechanical / semantic) before proceeding.
- Distinctive: line 97
Stage 5 → 6 (Review → Revision): Only enter Revision if review found issues.
- Distinctive: line 103
When dispatching implementation sub-agents (Stage 4), each must return its summary in this format.
- Very specific: line 159
Conventional commits: All commits follow <type>[scope]: <description> format.
- Distinctive: line 163
After each stage transition, render this dashboard:
- Distinctive: line 189
When Stage 8 (Reflection) completes:
- Distinctive: line 197
If you are resuming a workflow after a crash or context loss:
- Very specific: line 198
Read .workflow/state.json to determine where you were
- Very specific: line 199
Check for persisted summaries: ls .workflow/summaries/*.md
- Distinctive: line 200
Check working tree: git status
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 55 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Orchestrate the development workflow for: $ARGUMENTS
Overview
You are the workflow conductor. You sequence 8 stages, enforce gates between them, dispatch to stage skills, and maintain a state file. You do NOT perform stage-specific work yourself — you delegate to the appropriate skill or sub-agent at each stage.
Stages and Dispatch
| # | Stage | Skill/Command | Gate (must pass before advancing) |
| 1 | Ideation | /workflow-ideation | User confirms proceed (question 3d is not "confident no") |
| 2 | Dev-Time Docs | workflow Stage 2 (spec + claims) | Spec in .specs/ with frontmatter claims per .schemas/spec-v1.json |
| 3 | Planning | /workflows-plan | Plan file exists and user has approved it |
| 4 | Implementation | /workflows-work | All sub-agent summaries persisted to disk, all tests pass |
| 5 | Review | /workflows-review | All claims verified, no blocking findings |
| 6 | Revision | /workflow-revision | Review passes OR max iterations reached + user accepts |
| 7 | Compound | /workflows-compound | Learning captured |
| 8 | Reflection | /workflow-reflection | Spec claims updated, issues closed, branch merged or marked ready |
Initialization
When invoked, first check for an existing workflow state:
cat .workflow/state.json 2>/dev/nullIf state exists and is not completed: Resume from currentStage. Show the dashboard and ask the user whether to continue or restart.
If no state exists: Initialize a new workflow:
- Generate a short ID:
workflow-$(date +%s | tail -c 5) - Create or confirm the feature branch (per AGENTS.md branch rules)
- Write the initial state file (see State Schema below)
- Begin at Stage 1: Ideation
State Schema
Write to .workflow/state.json:
{
"id": "workflow-<short-id>",
"title": "<feature name from $ARGUMENTS>",
"branch": "<type>/<branch-name>",
"startedAt": "<ISO timestamp>",
"updatedAt": "<ISO timestamp>",
"currentStage": "ideation",
"stages": {
"ideation": { "status": "pending", "completedAt": null, "notes": "" },
"dev-docs": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "spec": null, "specClaims": null } },
"planning": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "plan": null } },
"implementation": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "summaries": [], "issues": [] } },
"review": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "findings": [] } },
"revision": { "status": "pending", "iterations": 0, "maxIterations": 3 },
"compound": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "solution": null } },
"reflection": { "status": "pending" }
}
}Stage Execution Protocol
For each stage:
- Update state: Set
currentStageand stage status to"in_progress", updateupdatedAt - Show dashboard (see Dashboard section below)
- Dispatch: Invoke the stage skill/command
- Check gate: Verify the gate conditions for the current stage
- Record artifacts: Update the stage's
artifactsin state with file paths - Advance: Set stage status to
"completed"withcompletedAt, movecurrentStageto next stage - Loop: Return to step 1 for the next stage
Gate Enforcement
If a gate condition is not met after the stage skill returns:
- Tell the user which gate conditions failed and why
- Ask whether to retry the stage or skip (with acknowledgment of risk)
- Do NOT silently advance past a failed gate
Stage Transitions with Special Logic
Stage 4 → 5 (Implementation → Review): Before dispatching review, run the between-stage check:
git fetch origin && git log origin/main --oneline -5If main has advanced, classify the conflict (no overlap / mechanical / semantic) before proceeding.
Stage 5 → 6 (Review → Revision): Only enter Revision if review found issues. If review is clean, skip directly to Stage 7 (Compound).
Stage 6 → 5 (Revision loop): Revision dispatches back to Review. This loop continues until review passes or maxIterations (3) is reached.
Sub-Agent Structured Output Format
When dispatching implementation sub-agents (Stage 4), each must return its summary in this format. Persist each summary to disk immediately upon receipt:
## Sub-Agent Work Summary
### Task
- Branch: <current branch>
- Spec: .specs/<spec-file>.md (with frontmatter claims)
### Changes
- Files modified: [list with paths]
- Files created: [list with paths]
- Files deleted: [list with paths]
- Lines: +N / -N
### Claims
Specific, testable statements about what the implementation does.
Review sub-agents verify these claims rather than reading all the code.
1. "[Function/module X] handles [case Y] by [doing Z]"
- Verifiable by: [test name or command]
2. "[Component A] now [behaves in way B] when [condition C]"
- Verifiable by: [test name or command]
### Spec/Evidence Alignment
For each spec claim or acceptance criterion this unit touches:
- `SPEC-...:cN` "[claim statement]": [SATISFIED | PARTIAL | NOT YET] -- [brief evidence]
### Tests
- Tests written: N
- Tests passing: N/N
- Commands: `[exact test command to reproduce]`
- Coverage: [files/functions covered by tests]
### Known Gaps
- [anything not completed, deferred, or uncertain]
- [any divergence from spec with justification]
### Spec Conflicts
- [any active spec claim contradicted by this work; cite spec_id:claim_id]
- [leave empty if none found]
### Risks
- [anything that could break other parts of the system]
- [any assumptions made that should be verified]Save summaries to: .workflow/summaries/<branch-slug>-<task>.md
Operational Rules
- 1 sub-agent = 1 commit: Each sub-agent's unit of work is exactly one commit, made after review validates the work — not during implementation.
- Summaries to disk: Persist sub-agent summaries immediately. Without this, orchestrator crashes lose all work.
- Orchestrators delegate: You do NOT read implementation code or write production code. You dispatch sub-agents and validate their summaries.
- Atomic commits: The commit includes both code changes AND any spec updates in the same commit.
- Conventional commits: All commits follow
<type>[scope]: <description>format.
Dashboard
After each stage transition, render this dashboard:
WORKFLOW: <title>
Branch: <branch>
Started: <startedAt>
Stage Status Artifacts
------- ------ ---------
1. Ideation [status] [notes excerpt]
2. Dev-Time Docs [status] spec: [path], claims: [count]
3. Planning [status] plan: [path]
4. Implementation [status] summaries: N, issues: N
5. Review [status] findings: N
6. Revision [status] iterations: N/3
7. Compound [status] [solution path]
8. Reflection [status]
Current: Stage N - <stage name>
Next action: <what to do next>Status symbols: [ ] pending, [~] in_progress, [x] completed, [-] skipped
Completion
When Stage 8 (Reflection) completes:
- Set all stage statuses to reflect final state
- Update
updatedAt - Report the final dashboard
- The state file remains for archaeological reference but is gitignored
Error Recovery
If you are resuming a workflow after a crash or context loss:
- Read
.workflow/state.jsonto determine where you were - Check for persisted summaries:
ls .workflow/summaries/*.md - Check working tree:
git status - Determine which recovery case applies (see WMD incident response) and resume accordingly
Reference
The rationale, failure modes, and detailed process descriptions that inform this workflow are documented in docs/WORKFLOW-MASTER-DESCRIPTION.md. Consult it when you need to understand WHY a rule exists, not just WHAT the rule is.
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
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.

