workflow-status
Skill300 starsChanged 42 days agoMITView on GitHub
Report which workflow artifacts exist, which RFCs are implemented and reviewed, what has drifted, and the next step.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ovargas/virtual-teamtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- Yash-Sukhdeve/universal-workflow-systemtheir own version, first seen Oct 1, 2026
- gtrabanco/agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Sep 22, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- gtrabanco/agentic-workflow★ 23same name
- ovargas/virtual-team★ 14same name
- Yash-Sukhdeve/universal-workflow-system★ 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- create-prdSkill
- document-existingSkill
- extract-featuresSkill
- generate-rfcsSkill
- generate-rulesSkill
- implement-rfcSkill
- manage-changesSkill
- review-rfcSkill
- test-strategySkill
- verify-prdSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 36
If you cannot inspect files directly, ask me to describe or paste the artifacts before reporting.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
You are guiding a project through an RFC-driven development workflow with these stages:
| # | Stage | Artifact | Command / Prompt |
| 0 | Document an existing codebase (instead of stages 1, 3 and 4) | PRD.md, FEATURES.md, RULES.md | /document-existing (document-existing-prompt.md) |
| 1 | Create PRD | PRD.md | /create-prd (interactive-prd-creation-prompt.md) |
| 2 | Verify PRD | PRD.md (improved) + PRD-REVIEW.md | /verify-prd (prd-comprehensive-verification-prompt.md) |
| 3 | Extract features | FEATURES.md | /extract-features (prd-to-features-prompt.md) |
| 4 | Generate rules | RULES.md | /generate-rules (prd-to-rules-prompt.md) |
| 5 | Generate RFCs | RFCs/ folder + RFCS.md | /generate-rfcs (prd-to-rfcs-prompt.md) |
| 6 | Testing strategy | TEST-STRATEGY.md | /test-strategy (testing-strategy-prompt.md) |
| 7 | Implement RFCs (each once its declared predecessors are done) | Code | /implement-rfc <id> (implementation-prompt-template.md) |
| 8 | Review each implementation | reviews/REVIEW-RFC-<id>.md | /review-rfc <id> (code-review-prompt.md) |
| 9 | Manage changes (whenever requirements move) | changes/CHANGE-REQUEST-<nnn>.md | /manage-changes (prd-change-management-prompt.md) |
| 10 | Status check (anytime) | this report | /workflow-status (workflow-status-prompt.md) |
Stage 6 comes before stage 7 deliberately: a test plan written after the code is a coverage audit, not a plan.
Inspect the current project to determine workflow progress. If trace-check.py is available -- in a scripts/ folder beside these instructions, or in the project's own scripts/ folder -- run it on the project first (python3 <path>/trace-check.py .): it checks IDs, coverage, RFC dependencies and review records mechanically, and its FAIL lines belong in your Inconsistencies section.
- Which artifacts exist: PRD.md, PRD-REVIEW.md, FEATURES.md, RULES.md, RFCS.md, RFCs/ folder, TEST-STRATEGY.md, reviews/, changes/?
- Which RFCs are implemented? Start from the Status column in RFCS.md, which
/implement-rfcand/review-rfckeep current, then verify it: spot-check the acceptance criteria of every RFC it marks Implemented or Reviewed against the actual code, and report any status the code does not support. Do not assume an RFC is done just because code exists, or because the column says so. - Which RFCs have been reviewed? Check
reviews/for a report per implemented RFC — an implemented RFC with no review is the most common real-world gap, and reviews are exactly what gets skipped under deadline. - Are there open change requests in
changes/whose decisions are still pending? - Any signs of drift: code that contradicts the PRD or RULES.md, features in the codebase with no RFC, an RFC implemented before its declared predecessors, deviations in code that the RFC's Implementation Notes do not record?
If you cannot inspect files directly, ask me to describe or paste the artifacts before reporting.
Then report:
- Status table — each workflow stage with its artifact and status (Done / In progress / Missing / Stale)
Per-RFC progress — implementation and review status side by side, one row per RFC:
RFC-001 implemented ✅ reviewed ❌ RFC-002 implemented ✅ reviewed ❌ RFC-003 implemented ✅ reviewed ✅A single "reviews done" row hides which RFCs were actually reviewed. Report them individually.
- Inconsistencies — anything drifted, skipped, or contradictory, with file references
- Next step — the single recommended next action, with the exact command or prompt to run
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.