agentleFS
mhyllemhylle/claude-skills-collection/skills/workflow-guide/SKILL.md

workflow-guide

Skill20 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub

Routes a piece of work to the right pipeline in this collection. First decides TaskTracker vs file-based (the tt-* skills when a TaskTracker MCP is available and the project is tracked there; /create-plan and /implement-plan otherwise; /brainstorm serves both), then picks the lane by work shape: sequential phase-by-phase implementation, an autonomous gated run (/tt-workflow-run), an unattended /loop build prompt (/tt-create-build-loop), a parallel build (/tt-workflow-build), a read-only audit at scale (/tt-workflow-audit), or one GitHub issue to a merged PR (/ship-issue). Use when the user asks which workflow, pipeline or mode to use, whether to run work in parallel, or is about to start building without having picked a lane. It recommends a lane and the next command; it does not run the work itself.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Files
SKILL.md

Workflow Guide

<!-- contents: generated by tests/skill_structure.py --write; edit headings, not this block -->

Contents

  • How to decide
  • Decision table
  • Parallel lanes
  • Output
  • Examples
<!-- /contents -->

Pick one lane for the user's work and name the command to run next. Commands are written unprefixed; with the devflow plugin installed they are /devflow:<name>.

How to decide

  1. TaskTracker or file-based. Use the TaskTracker column when TaskTracker MCP tools (mcp__tasktracker__*) are available and the project is tracked there: the user names a TaskTracker project, an active task is set, or tasktracker_listProjects has a project for this repo (load the tool with ToolSearch if it is deferred). Otherwise use the file-based column. The tt-* skills keep plans, phases and insights in TaskTracker, so a file-based skill in a tracked project only produces orphan markdown.
  2. Work shape. Find the row that matches what the user wants done.
  3. Ask only what is missing. If the request already answers both, recommend straight away. Otherwise ask at most two short questions — whether the project is tracked in TaskTracker, and what shape the work has (explore, plan, build, audit, one issue). Don't ask about anything the table doesn't use.

Decision table

The user wants to…TaskTrackerFile-based
Refine a rough idea before planning/brainstorm (writes docs/brainstorms/; /tt-create-plan reads it)/brainstorm
Turn an idea or clear requirement into a phased plan/tt-create-plan/create-plan
Implement a plan phase by phase, confirming between phases/tt-implement-plan/implement-plan
Drive the ready backlog to done autonomously, with per-slice gates and measured time/tt-workflow-run/implement-plan (no autonomous lane)
Leave the project building itself unattended across many /loop iterations/tt-create-build-loop (writes the loop prompt; it then runs under /loop)none — use /implement-plan
Build many independent pieces at once/tt-workflow-build/tt-workflow-build if the user agrees to track the project in TaskTracker (it creates one); otherwise /implement-plan
Audit or analyze a whole repo, backlog or component set, read-only/tt-workflow-audit/codebase-audit
Take one GitHub issue to a merged PR/ship-issue <issue>/ship-issue <issue>

A full pipeline runs the first three rows in order; skip brainstorming when the requirement is already clear.

/ship-issue is manual-only (disable-model-invocation), so tell the user to type it rather than invoking it.

Parallel lanes

/tt-workflow-build and /tt-workflow-audit fan work out to many agents. They use the Claude Code Workflow tool when it is in your tool list — it is opt-in, enabled with /config → "Dynamic workflows" — and otherwise fall back to parallel Agent subagents. Check your own tool list to see which applies, and mention it in the recommendation, since the Workflow path costs noticeably more tokens and shows a confirmation prompt on first use.

They pay off when the units are independent and their results can be merged afterwards. Work where each step depends on the previous result belongs in a sequential lane (/tt-implement-plan, /tt-workflow-run, /implement-plan). In both parallel skills the parent session makes every TaskTracker write and the fanned-out agents stay read-only — see the workflow–TaskTracker contract.

Output

## Recommendation: <lane>

Why: <one or two sentences tying the request to the table row and the TaskTracker/file-based choice>

Next: `/<command> <args>`  (then `/<command>` … if it is a multi-step pipeline)

Alternative: <only if borderline — the adjacent row and when to switch>

Examples

User: "Fix the date formatting bug in the dashboard." No TaskTracker tools available.

Recommendation: file-based pipeline without the brainstorm, since the problem is already clear. Next: /create-plan, then /implement-plan <plan>.

User: "Add OAuth2 with Google and GitHub to the billing app." An active TaskTracker task belongs to the billing project.

Recommendation: TaskTracker pipeline. Next: /brainstorm to settle the provider design, /tt-create-plan with the brainstorm file it wrote, then /tt-implement-plan. Alternative: once the plan has independent provider phases, /tt-workflow-build can build them in parallel.

User: "Find all architecture drift and duplicate tasks across this project." The project is tracked in TaskTracker.

Recommendation: read-only audit at scale. Next: /tt-workflow-audit. Say whether it will run on the Workflow tool or on parallel subagents, based on your tool list.

User: "I want this repo to keep building overnight without me."

Recommendation: TaskTracker, unattended row (ask whether it is tracked if you can't tell). Next: /tt-create-build-loop, then /loop with the prompt it writes. Alternative: /tt-workflow-run for a measured, gated run that pauses at human gates.

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.