pipeline-templates
Skill8 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Pre-defined F# pipe workflows for multi-agent orchestration. Provides code review, fix validation, test audit, new feature, research & planning, and test execution pipelines. Triggered via PostToolUse hook after significant code changes.
- Reads credentials
In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- anthropic-validatorSkill
- assertion-patternsSkill
- bug-magnet-dataSkill
- bulwark-brainstormSkill
- bulwark-researchSkill
- bulwark-scaffoldSkill
- bulwark-statuslineSkill
- bulwark-verifySkill
- code-reviewSkill
- component-patternsSkill
- continuous-feedbackSkill
- create-skillSkill
- create-subagentSkill
- fix-bugSkill
- governance-protocolSkill
- initSkill
- issue-debuggingSkill
- mock-detectionSkill
- plan-creationSkill
- plan-to-tasksSkill
- product-ideationSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- setup-lspSkill
- spec-drift-checkSkill
- subagent-output-templatingSkill
- subagent-promptingSkill
- test-auditSkill
- test-classificationSkill
- test-fixture-creationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Very specific: line 74
Override rule: If a custom agent specifies model: in frontmatter, use that model instead.
- Distinctive: line 103
Blocks: Never (suggestion only, not blocking)
- Very specific: line 107
When triggered by the Stop hook after Write/Edit/MultiEdit, select pipeline based on file modified.
- Very specific: line 160
If a project relies heavily on inline tests, a future version may add content-based detection.
- Distinctive: line 179
All pipelines follow this execution pattern:
- Very specific: line 203
All output logged to logs/
≈ “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.
Files
Pipeline Templates
Overview
This skill provides pre-defined F# pipe workflows for common multi-agent scenarios. Pipelines ensure:
- Deterministic orchestration: Consistent agent sequencing
- Hard validation: Block incorrect pipeline usage
- Progress tracking: Log all pipeline stages
- Model optimization: Right model for each stage
When to use: Multi-agent work requiring more than simple exploration.
When NOT to use: Single-agent tasks (explore, search, lookup) bypass pipeline validation automatically.
Pipeline Selection Guide
Choose the appropriate pipeline based on your task:
Is this a multi-agent task?
├─ No → No pipeline needed (single-agent bypass)
└─ Yes → What type of work?
├─ Reviewing existing code → Code Review Pipeline
├─ Fixing a bug/issue → Fix Validation Pipeline
├─ Auditing test quality → Test Audit Pipeline
├─ Implementing new functionality → New Feature Pipeline
├─ Research before implementation → Research & Planning Pipeline
└─ Running tests and fixing failures → Test Execution & Fix PipelineAvailable Pipelines
| Pipeline | Use Case | Model Pattern | Reference |
| Code Review | PR review, code audit | Sonnet (role-based, 4 sections) | references/code-review.md |
| Fix Validation | Bug fixes, issue resolution | Sonnet (analyze) → Opus (fix) → Sonnet (validate) → Sonnet (review) | references/fix-validation.md |
| Test Audit | Test quality assessment | Haiku (classify) → Sonnet (detect) → Sonnet (audit) | references/test-audit.md |
| New Feature | Feature implementation | Haiku (research) → Opus (write) → Sonnet (review) | references/new-feature.md |
| Research & Planning | Pre-implementation research | Haiku (lookup) → Sonnet (review) → loop(min=3) | references/research-planning.md |
| Test Execution & Fix | Run tests, fix failures | Haiku (execute) → Sonnet (analyze) → Opus (fix) | references/test-execution-fix.md |
| Code Change Workflow | Full automation after code edit | Composite: chains multiple pipelines | references/code-change-workflow.md |
Pipeline Architecture Notes
Role-Based Agents: Code Review pipeline uses general-purpose sub-agents with specific roles. Each agent loads the code-review skill and references a specific section (Security, Type Safety, Linting, Coding Standards).
Custom Sub-Agents: Fix Validation pipeline uses custom sub-agents (bulwark-issue-analyzer, bulwark-fix-validator) that encapsulate stage behavior and load relevant skills via frontmatter.
Code-Writing Agent: Fix Validation and New Feature pipelines use bulwark-implementer (custom sub-agent, Opus) for code-writing stages with built-in quality enforcement.
Model Selection
Reference subagent-prompting skill for the task-type rubric:
| Task Type | Model | Examples |
| Lookups & Execute | Haiku | Web fetch, run tests, file search, lint |
| Review & Analyze | Sonnet | Code review, failure analysis, audits |
| Write & Fix | Opus | Write code, write tests, apply fixes |
Override rule: If a custom agent specifies model: in frontmatter, use that model instead.
Validation Rules
Valid Pipeline Invocation
A pipeline invocation is valid when:
- Uses a defined pipeline template from this skill
- Specifies model for each stage (or uses default from task-type rubric)
- Includes 4-part prompt for each Task (GOAL/CONSTRAINTS/CONTEXT/OUTPUT)
- Reads previous stage output before invoking next stage
Invalid Invocation (Warning/Block)
The following patterns trigger validation warnings:
| Pattern | Issue | Resolution |
| Ad-hoc multi-agent with no pipeline | Unpredictable orchestration | Choose appropriate pipeline |
| Missing model specification | May use wrong model | Specify model or use rubric |
| Skipping stages without justification | Incomplete workflow | Document skip reason |
| Using Opus for simple tasks | Wasteful | Use Haiku for lookups |
Hook Behavior (PostToolUse)
The PostToolUse hook on Write|Edit:
- Skips silently: Small changes below threshold
- Suggests pipeline: Significant changes inject
additionalContextwith pipeline recommendation - Blocks: Never (suggestion only, not blocking)
File Type to Pipeline Mapping
When triggered by the Stop hook after Write/Edit/MultiEdit, select pipeline based on file modified. The hook (suggest-pipeline-stop.sh) emits ALL applicable pipelines for the turn — Code Review and Test Audit can both fire when a turn touches both production code and test files.
Test detection (path-based, takes priority)
Files under any of these directory components are classified as test regardless of filename:
| Directory pattern | Stack | Examples |
tests/, */tests/ | Bulwark, generic | tests/hooks/test-foo.sh |
test/, */test/ | Ruby Minitest, Elixir, generic | test/foo_test.rb, test/foo_test.exs |
__tests__/ | Jest convention | __tests__/Component.test.tsx |
spec/, specs/ | Ruby RSpec, generic | spec/models/user_spec.rb |
src/test/ | JVM (Maven/Gradle) | src/test/java/FooTest.java |
Test detection (filename-based)
| Filename pattern | Stack | Examples |
test_*, test-* | Python (pytest), Bulwark hooks | test_models.py, test-foo.sh |
*_test.*, *-test.* | Go, Ruby Minitest, generic | models_test.go, foo-test.sh |
*_spec.*, *-spec.* | Ruby RSpec, generic | user_spec.rb |
*.test.*, *.spec.* | Jest, Vitest, Jasmine | Component.test.tsx, service.spec.js |
Test detection (PascalCase, JVM/.NET)
Case-sensitive match on basename suffix:
| Filename pattern | Stack | Examples |
*Test.{java,kt,scala} | JUnit, Kotest, ScalaTest | UserServiceTest.java |
*Tests.{cs,vb} | xUnit, NUnit (C#/.NET) | UserServiceTests.cs |
*Spec.{kt,scala} | Kotest, Specs2 | UserServiceSpec.kt |
*Specs.cs | NSpec | UserSpecs.cs |
*IT.java | JUnit integration tests | UserServiceIT.java |
Code, script, config detection
| File Pattern | Extension | Recommended Pipeline |
| Production code | .ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .mjs, .cjs, .py, .go, .rs, .java, .kt, .scala, .cs, .fs, .vb, .rb, .exs, .ex, .cpp, .c, .php, .swift | Code Review |
| Scripts | .sh, .bash, .zsh, .fish, .ps1 | Code Review (security focus) |
| Config | .json, .yaml, .yml, .toml, .ini, .env | Code Review (security focus) |
| Documentation | .md, .txt, .rst | Light review or skip |
| Data files | .xlsx, .csv, .pdf | Manual review suggested |
Out of scope (path-only detection limits)
Path-based classification cannot detect tests embedded in production source files:
- Rust inline
#[test]— annotation-only signal, no path convention.src/foo.rsalways classifies as code; if it contains inline tests, they'll be reviewed under Code Review, not Test Audit. - Python doctests — same rationale;
foo.pywith doctests classifies as code. - Inline test directives in any language — content-only signal, undetectable from path.
If a project relies heavily on inline tests, a future version may add content-based detection. For now, conventional tests/ or test_* placement triggers Test Audit; inline tests don't.
Small Change Bypass
Skip pipeline for small changes (threshold by file type):
| File Type | Threshold | Rationale |
| Code | < 5 lines | Minor fixes don't need full review |
| Tests | < 10 lines | Single test additions are low risk |
| Config | < 3 lines | Single value changes are quick to verify |
| Documentation | <= 10 lines | Typo fixes and small updates |
| Scripts | < 3 lines | Security-sensitive, low threshold |
| Data | Any change | Always significant, suggest review |
Changes at or below threshold are skipped silently. Changes above threshold trigger pipeline suggestion.
Pipeline Execution Pattern
All pipelines follow this execution pattern:
// F# pipe syntax for workflow orchestration
// Sequential execution (each stage reads previous stage's output)
Stage1 (task) // First agent runs
|> Stage2 (task) // Reads Stage1 output, runs
|> Stage3 (task) // Reads Stage2 output, runs
|> (if condition // Conditional branching
then StageA
else StageB)
|> LOOP(max=N) // Optional iteration
// Parallel execution (agents run concurrently, results merged)
[Stage1a, Stage1b, Stage1c] // Array notation = parallel
|> Stage2 (reads all Stage1 outputs)Key principles:
- Sequential (
|>): Each stage reads the previous stage's log output - Parallel (
[]): Stages in array notation run concurrently via multiple Task calls in a single message - Conditional branches based on stage results
- Loops have explicit iteration limits
- All output logged to
logs/
Progress Tracking
Pipeline progress is tracked via hooks:
| Event | Hook | Log Entry |
| Stage start | SubagentStart | [timestamp] SubagentStart: agent_id (type) |
| Stage end | SubagentStop | [timestamp] SubagentStop: agent_id |
Logs written to: logs/pipeline-tracking.log
Related Skills
| Skill | Relationship |
subagent-prompting | 4-part template, model selection rubric |
subagent-output-templating | Output format for pipeline stages |
Quick Reference
// Code Review (role-based agents, parallel execution)
[SecurityReviewer (section: Security), // Sonnet - role-based
TypeSafetyReviewer (section: Type Safety), // Sonnet - role-based
LintReviewer (section: Linting), // Sonnet - role-based
StandardsReviewer (section: Coding Standards)] // Sonnet - role-based
|> ReviewSynthesizer (consolidates all findings)
|> (if critical_issues then FixWriter else Done)
// Fix Validation (custom sub-agents)
IssueAnalyzer (bulwark-issue-analyzer, produces debug_report)
|> FixWriter (bulwark-implementer, implements fix)
|> (if !tests_cover_scenario // Only if tests don't exist
then TestWriter |> TestAudit (mock-detection only) // Audit generated tests for T1-T4
else TestAudit (if FixWriter wrote tests)) // Audit implementer tests for T1-T4
|> FixValidator (bulwark-fix-validator, validates against debug_report)
|> CodeReviewer (reviews all, approves/rejects)
|> (if !approved then IssueAnalyzer else Done)
|> LOOP(max=3)
// Test Audit (Main Context Orchestration - skill-based)
TestClassifier |> MockDetector |> AuditSynthesizer
|> (if REWRITE_REQUIRED then TestRewriter else Done)
|> LOOP(max=2)
// New Feature
Researcher |> Architect |> Implementer (bulwark-implementer) |> TestWriter |> TestAudit |> CodeReviewer
// Research & Planning (min 3 iterations)
Researcher |> PlanDraft |> PlanReviewer |> LOOP(min=3)
// Test Execution & Fix (orchestrator fixes, PostToolUse hook enforces quality)
TestRunner |> (if failures then FailureAnalyzer |> FixWriter (orchestrator) |> LOOP else Done)
// CODE CHANGE WORKFLOW (Composite - chains pipelines after code edit)
// See references/code-change-workflow.md for full details
CodeReviewPipeline
|> TestAuditPipeline (Main Context Orchestration)
|> TestExecutionPipeline
|> (if code_bugs then FixValidationPipeline else Done)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.

