subagent-output-templating
Skill8 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Template for structured sub-agent output including YAML log format, task completion reports (WHY/WHAT/TRADE-OFFS/RISKS), and summary constraints. Use when defining how sub-agents should report results.
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
- pipeline-templatesSkill
- plan-creationSkill
- plan-to-tasksSkill
- product-ideationSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- setup-lspSkill
- spec-drift-checkSkill
- subagent-promptingSkill
- test-auditSkill
- test-classificationSkill
- test-fixture-creationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 22
Use this skill when:
- Distinctive: line 107
Every sub-agent MUST conclude with this structured report.
- Distinctive: line 111
Document the problem and solution rationale.
- Distinctive: line 272
Read-only agents (reviewers, auditors) omit this section.
- Very specific: line 406
Important: Always use {YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS} in file paths, never {timestamp} or {ts}.
≈ “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
Sub-Agent Output Templating
Overview
This skill provides standardized templates for sub-agent OUTPUT formatting. It complements subagent-prompting (P0.1) which defines INPUT structure:
| Skill | Purpose |
subagent-prompting | How to prompt sub-agents (GOAL/CONSTRAINTS/CONTEXT/OUTPUT) |
subagent-output-templating | How sub-agents report results (logs, summaries, diagnostics) |
Use this skill when:
- Defining output requirements for sub-agent invocations
- Parsing sub-agent results in pipeline stages
- Ensuring consistent log formats across all agents
Log File Format
File Location
logs/{agent-name}-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.yamlExample: logs/bulwark-code-auditor-20260111-143022.yaml
YAML Schema
# Required: Metadata block
metadata:
agent: {agent-name} # e.g., bulwark-code-auditor
timestamp: {ISO-8601} # e.g., 2026-01-11T14:30:22Z
model: {model-used} # sonnet, haiku, or opus
task_id: {unique-identifier} # For tracking across pipeline stages
duration_ms: {execution-time} # Execution duration in milliseconds
# Required: Goal from the prompt (for traceability)
goal: "{GOAL from 4-part prompt}"
# Required: Completion report
completion:
why:
problem: "{What was broken/missing}"
root_cause: "{Why it happened}"
solution: "{What was implemented}"
what:
- file: {path}
lines: "{range}"
change: "{description}"
trade_offs:
gained:
- "{benefit 1}"
cost:
- "{drawback 1}"
risks:
- risk: "{description}"
mitigation: "{how addressed}"
severity: {low|medium|high|critical}
next_steps:
- "{action item 1}"
# Required for code-writing agents (omit for read-only agents):
# Pipeline suggestions from implementer-quality.sh output
pipeline_suggestions:
- pipeline: "{recommended pipeline name}"
target_files:
- "{file path}"
reason: "{why this pipeline is recommended}"
# Required: Summary for main thread (100-300 tokens)
summary: |
{Concise summary for main thread consumption}
# Required: Diagnostic output
diagnostics:
model_requested: {model}
model_actual: {model}
context_type: {main|forked}
parent_vars_accessible: {true|false}
hooks_fired:
- {hook-name}
execution_time_ms: {duration}
completion_status: {success|error|timeout}Task Completion Report (WHY/WHAT/TRADE-OFFS/RISKS)
Every sub-agent MUST conclude with this structured report. This enables explicit decision documentation rather than implicit code changes.
WHY Section
Document the problem and solution rationale.
why:
problem: "Authentication bypass vulnerability in refresh token path"
root_cause: "Token validation skips expiry check on refresh"
solution: "Added isExpired() check to refresh token handler"Guidelines:
problem: What was broken, missing, or needs improvementroot_cause: The underlying reason (not just symptoms)solution: What was done to address it
WHAT Section
List all changes made with file locations.
what:
- file: src/auth/token.ts
lines: "45-52"
change: "Added isExpired() check before token refresh"
- file: src/auth/token.test.ts
lines: "120-145"
change: "Added test for expired refresh token rejection"Guidelines:
- One entry per file modified
- Include line ranges for precise location
- Describe the change, not the code
TRADE-OFFS Section
Acknowledge explicit compromises made.
trade_offs:
gained:
- "Security: Expired tokens now properly rejected"
- "Compliance: Meets OWASP session management requirements"
cost:
- "Performance: Additional DB lookup on refresh (negligible)"
- "Complexity: New error handling path for expired tokens"Guidelines:
- Be honest about costs
- Quantify impact where possible
- Include both technical and business trade-offs
RISKS Section
Document forward-looking concerns.
risks:
- risk: "Existing sessions with expired refresh tokens will fail"
mitigation: "Grace period of 24h for migration"
severity: medium
- risk: "Grace period could be exploited"
mitigation: "Monitor for unusual refresh patterns"
severity: lowSeverity Levels:
| Level | Definition |
low | Unlikely or minor impact |
medium | Possible impact, manageable |
high | Likely impact, needs attention |
critical | Must be addressed before deployment |
NEXT STEPS Section
List follow-up actions for pipeline or human.
next_steps:
- "Monitor refresh failure rate for 24h"
- "Remove grace period after migration window"
- "Update documentation for new error codes"Guidelines:
- Actionable items only
- Include owner if known (e.g., "DevOps: Update monitoring dashboard")
- Order by priority
Summary Format for Main Thread
Purpose
The summary is returned to the main thread for pipeline decision-making. It should enable the orchestrator to:
- Understand key findings without reading full log
- Decide next pipeline stage
- Report status to user
Token Budget
| Complexity | Target Tokens | Use Case |
| Simple | 100-150 | Single finding, clear action |
| Moderate | 150-250 | Multiple findings, some nuance |
| Complex | 250-300 | Many findings, trade-off decisions |
Summary Template
Found [N] [severity] issue(s): [brief description].
[Action taken / recommendation].
[Key risk or follow-up if any].Examples
Simple (120 tokens):
Found 1 critical vulnerability: refresh tokens not validated for expiry.
Fixed by adding isExpired() check in token.ts:45-52. Added regression test.
Risk: existing sessions may fail during 24h migration window.Moderate (200 tokens):
Found 3 issues in authentication module:
- 1 critical: token expiry bypass (fixed)
- 1 medium: weak password hashing (fixed, migration needed)
- 1 low: verbose error messages (fixed)
All issues addressed with tests added. Migration script created for password re-hashing.
Next: run migration in staging, monitor for 48h before production.What to Include
- Finding count and severity
- Actions taken
- Key risks or blockers
- Recommended next steps
What to Exclude
- Full reasoning or analysis
- Code snippets
- Verbose explanations
- Duplicate information from log
Pipeline Suggestions in Summary (Code-Writing Agents)
Code-writing agents (e.g., bulwark-implementer) that invoke implementer-quality.sh and receive pipeline suggestions MUST include them in the summary with MANDATORY language. This ensures the orchestrator sees and acts on them per SA6.
MANDATORY FOLLOW-UP (SA6): Run the following pipeline(s):
- {pipeline} on {target_files} ({reason})
Orchestrator MUST evaluate each suggestion and either execute or document deferral per SA6.Read-only agents (reviewers, auditors) omit this section.
Diagnostic Output
Purpose
Enable automated behavioral testing without mocking. Diagnostics verify:
- Correct model was used
- Context isolation worked (for
context: forkagents) - Hooks fired as expected
- Execution completed successfully
Location
logs/diagnostics/{agent-name}-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.yamlFormat
skill: subagent-output-templating
timestamp: 2026-01-11T14:30:22Z
diagnostics:
model_requested: sonnet
model_actual: sonnet
context_type: forked # main or forked
parent_vars_accessible: false # Should be false for forked
hooks_fired:
- Stop
execution_time_ms: 4520
completion_status: success # success, error, timeout
notes: "Task completed successfully"Diagnostic Fields
| Field | Purpose | Values |
model_requested | Model specified in prompt | haiku, sonnet, opus |
model_actual | Model that actually ran | haiku, sonnet, opus |
context_type | Execution context | main, forked |
parent_vars_accessible | Context isolation test | true, false |
hooks_fired | Lifecycle hooks that executed | Array of hook names |
execution_time_ms | Duration | Integer |
completion_status | Final status | success, error, timeout |
Quick Reference
Minimal Log Template
metadata:
agent: {name}
timestamp: {ISO-8601}
model: sonnet
task_id: "{id}"
duration_ms: 0
goal: "{goal}"
completion:
why:
problem: "{problem}"
root_cause: "{cause}"
solution: "{solution}"
what:
- file: {path}
lines: "{range}"
change: "{description}"
trade_offs:
gained: ["{benefit}"]
cost: ["{cost}"]
risks:
- risk: "{risk}"
mitigation: "{mitigation}"
severity: medium
next_steps:
- "{action}"
# Include for code-writing agents only (omit for read-only agents):
pipeline_suggestions:
- pipeline: "{pipeline name}"
target_files: ["{path}"]
reason: "{reason}"
summary: |
{100-300 token summary}
diagnostics:
model_requested: sonnet
model_actual: sonnet
context_type: forked
parent_vars_accessible: false
hooks_fired: []
execution_time_ms: 0
completion_status: successSummary Checklist
[ ] Count and severity of findings stated
[ ] Actions taken described
[ ] Key risks mentioned
[ ] Next steps listed
[ ] Under 300 tokens
[ ] Pipeline suggestions with MANDATORY language (code-writing agents only)Output Location Checklist
[ ] Main log: logs/{agent}-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.yaml
[ ] Diagnostics: logs/diagnostics/{agent}-{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}.yamlTimestamp Formats
| Context | Placeholder | Format | Example |
| File paths | {YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS} | Compact, filesystem-safe | 20260119-143022 |
| YAML fields | {ISO-8601} | Standard ISO format | 2026-01-19T14:30:22Z |
Why two formats?
- File names: No colons (filesystem-safe on Windows), compact, lexically sortable
- YAML fields: Standard ISO-8601 for parsing and interoperability
Important: Always use {YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS} in file paths, never {timestamp} or {ts}.
Related Skills
- subagent-prompting (P0.1): Defines INPUT structure (GOAL/CONSTRAINTS/CONTEXT/OUTPUT)
- pipeline-templates (P0.3): Pre-defined workflows that consume this output format
References
For extended examples and edge cases, see references/examples.md.
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.

