workflow-patterns
Skill586 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Argument shapes for the 5 built-in workflow patterns — deep-research, adversarial-review, code-review, multi-perspective, codebase-audit — runnable via the `workflow` tool's `name` input, without slash-command syntax. Use for requests like "research X", "fact-check/adversarially review this", "review this diff/PR", "analyze from multiple perspectives", or "audit the codebase for Y". Not for authoring a new workflow script — see workflow-authoring.
7 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- xfstudio/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Samueladewole/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- caobingsheng/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- terrene-foundation/pacttheir own version, first seen Apr 6, 2026
- ai4brands-design/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 22, 2026
- CodeWithBehnam/cc-docstheir own version, first seen Mar 15, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 7
- wpank/ai★ 11same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- ai4brands-design/claude-skills★ 2same name
- CodeWithBehnam/cc-docs★ 2same name
- caobingsheng/skills★ 1same name
- Samueladewole/claude-skills★ 0same name
- terrene-foundation/pact★ 0same name
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 repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- workflow-authoringSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
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
- Very specific: line 50
If the request doesn't fit one of these 5 shapes, author a script with script as usual — see the workflow-authoring skill.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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
Built-in workflow patterns
pi-dynamic-workflows ships 5 curated, tested workflow patterns. Each is also a
slash command (/deep-research, /adversarial-review, /code-review,
/multi-perspective, /codebase-audit), but they are equally reachable from
the workflow tool directly: call it with name set to the pattern name
below and args matching its shape, instead of writing an equivalent script
from scratch. Prefer this over authoring a new script whenever the request
fits one of these shapes — the curated version is already reviewed and tested.
A project or user saved workflow of the same name always takes precedence over a built-in of that name — on the slash command, too.
These 5 names are reachable only at the workflow tool's top-level name
input, not via the in-script await workflow(savedName, childArgs) helper —
that helper resolves saved workflows only. Calling workflow('deep-research')
from inside a script fails as an unknown saved workflow; use the top-level
name input instead.
Patterns
name | When to reach for it | args |
deep-research | Research a question across the web with cross-checked sources | { question: string, angles?: number, minSupport?: number } — angles (default 4) is the number of distinct search queries; minSupport (default 2) is the minimum distinct sources required for a claim to survive cross-checking |
adversarial-review | Investigate a task/claim, then cross-check each finding with skeptical reviewers | { task: string, reviewers?: number, threshold?: number } |
code-review | Multi-angle review of a diff (correctness, reuse, simplification, efficiency, altitude) | { diff: string, diffSource?: string } — get diff yourself first (e.g. git diff, gh pr diff <n>); this path does not fetch it for you |
multi-perspective | Analyze a topic from several independent perspectives in parallel, then synthesize | { topic: string, perspectives?: string[] } — omit or give fewer than 2 to use the default set (technical, product, security, user experience, maintainability) |
codebase-audit | Run parallel checks against a codebase scope, then cross-validate and report | { scope: string, checks: string[] } |
Example
{ "name": "deep-research", "args": { "question": "What are the tradeoffs of X vs Y?" } }This is a workflow tool call, not a script — omit script entirely. The run
starts in the background exactly like the slash-command form; background,
maxAgents, concurrency, agentRetries, agentTimeoutMs, and tokenBudget
all still apply.
Writing a new workflow instead
If the request doesn't fit one of these 5 shapes, author a script with
script as usual — see the workflow-authoring skill.
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.