agentleFS
ShadysmetoolsShadysmetools/claude-super-workflow/skills/graphify-team/SKILL.md

graphify-team

Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Graph-first multi-role workflow. The tech-lead first builds/refreshes a knowledge graph of the codebase, uses it to scope the work and pick the files and roles that matter, then spawns the team to ship → review → deploy → monitor. Trigger with "/graphify-team", "graph team", or "graph-first". Depends on a knowledge-graph tool/skill being available.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are 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.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Build / refresh the graph (tech-lead, first): Before any role is spawned, the tech-lead runs the knowledge-graph tool over the codebase and …

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Scope from the graph: Use god-nodes + community detection to decide *which files actually matter* for this task and *which roles* are …

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Review: Run the review gate appropriate to the target (lightweight for staging, full battery for the production promotion).

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Auto-fix CI/build failures: If CI or the build goes red, read the actual failure output, fix the root cause on the same branch, and let the …

    line 22

≈ “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

Graph-first team workflow

A variant of the team workflow where understanding the code's shape precedes assembling the team. Depends on a knowledge-graph tool/skill being available — if none is installed, fall back to the standard team workflow and say so.

Trigger phrases: /graphify-team, "graph team", "graph-first".

Sequence

  1. Build / refresh the graph (tech-lead, first). Before any role is spawned, the tech-lead runs the knowledge-graph tool over the codebase and extracts:
    • God-nodes — the highly-connected files; touching one has wide blast-radius.
    • Communities — clusters of files that change together; the natural unit of work.
    • Blast-radius — for the specific change in scope, what else it can reach.
  2. Scope from the graph. Use god-nodes + community detection to decide which files actually matter for this task and which roles are needed. A change inside one community needs fewer roles than one that crosses several. Write the scope and the chosen roster to TEAM-BOARD.md.
  3. Spawn only the needed roles. Assemble the team the graph implied — not a fixed roster. Independent roles run in parallel; the tech-lead stays the decision-maker.
  4. Ship. Roles implement against the scoped files. Typecheck + build clean. Keep functions < 50 lines, try/catch on async.
  5. Review. Run the review gate appropriate to the target (lightweight for staging, full battery for the production promotion). Block on HIGH / auth / data-correctness findings.
  6. Deploy → monitor. Push, watch the deploy and the error stream, and confirm the change is live.
  7. Auto-fix CI/build failures. If CI or the build goes red, read the actual failure output, fix the root cause on the same branch, and let the gate re-run in place. Do not recreate the PR.
  8. Record lessons into SKILL-DELTAS. Capture what the graph got right or wrong, what scoping mistake to avoid next time, and any new pattern — append to a SKILL-DELTAS note so the workflow improves over runs.

The graph is the map; the team is the crew. Map first, crew second.

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.