agentleFS
smallnestsmallnest/goal-workflow/skills/graph/SKILL.md

graph

Skill283 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Graph engineering for parallel task execution: convert a task, PRD, SPEC, or issue set into a dependency graph (DAG), layer it into supersteps, then implement each independent node concurrently with subagents — each node runs /goal → /review-it → /ship-it in an isolated git worktree, with a fan-in barrier between waves. Triggers on: graph, graph engineering, build a graph, task graph, dependency graph, DAG, parallel implement, 并发实现, 并行实现, 任务图, 把任务变成图, fan-out fan-in, superstep, dynamic workflow.

25 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use ingest, explore and 7 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • JaimeGBASkill

    ingest

    Digest an external source (article, paper, transcript, URL, book chapter) and integrate its content into the knowledge base

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • genomewalkerSkill

    explore

    RLM-style recursive memory exploration - dynamically navigate the memory graph

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    init

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    start

    Set up your bio-research environment and explore available tools. Use when first getting oriented with the plugin, checking which literature, drug-discovery, or visualization MCP servers are connected, or surveying available analysis skills before starting a new project.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    debug

    Structured debugging session — reproduce, isolate, diagnose, and fix. Trigger with an error message or stack trace, "this works in staging but not prod", "something broke after the deploy", or when behavior diverges from expected and the cause isn't obvious.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • BlockSkill

    plan

    Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 20 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Remove wave-0 nodes; Wave 1 = nodes whose deps are now all satisfied.

    line 119
  2. Distinctive:

    Wait for user confirmation: before dispatching any subagent.

    line 150
  3. Very specific:

    Before the first wave (same spirit as /loop-it):

    line 156
  4. Distinctive:

    Wait for every subagent in the wave to return (BSP barrier — the next wave cannot start until this one commits).

    line 241
  5. Very specific:

    Read each subagent's summary.

    line 243
  6. Very specific:

    Remove finished worktrees: git worktree remove ../.graph-worktrees/node-{N} (keep failed ones for investigation).

    line 245
  7. Very specific:

    Write checkpoint to .graph_state, then re-render the tracker: python3 skills/graph/scripts/render_graph_html.py .graph_state graph.html …

    line 246
  8. Very specific:

    If any node in the wave failed, mark all nodes that depend on it as blocked and skip them (their inputs aren't ready).

    line 249
  9. Very specific:

    Never skip /review-it: before /ship-it.

    line 294
  10. Distinctive:

    Confirm the plan: before the first fan-out.

    line 299

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 20 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

graph — Task/PRD to Parallel Execution Graph

Turn a task (or PRD / SPEC / issue set) into a directed acyclic graph of work units, layer it into supersteps (waves), and implement each wave's independent nodes concurrently using subagents. Each node runs the full /goal → /review-it → /ship-it pipeline inside its own git worktree, so parallel nodes never clobber each other's working tree. Between waves, a fan-in barrier merges results and re-plans the next wave.

This is the parallel sibling of /loop-it. /loop-it is strictly sequential (one worktree, one issue at a time). /graph fans out every independent node in a wave at once.


Mental Model (borrowed from LangGraph / graph engineering)

ConceptHere
NodeOne implementable unit of work (an issue / subtask)
EdgeA dependency: B depends on A → edge A → B
Superstep / waveA set of nodes whose deps are all satisfied — run concurrently
Fan-outDispatch one subagent per node in the current wave
Fan-in (barrier)Wait for all nodes in the wave before starting the next
State channel.graph_state — shared checkpoint, rewritten between waves (resume source)
Live trackergraph.html — Claude-style light-theme dashboard, re-rendered from .graph_state at every checkpoint
Dynamic re-planAfter a wave, revise the graph if new work/deps emerged

Core principle: Independent nodes in the same wave have no shared state and no ordering dependency, so they can run in true parallel. Dependencies define the only ordering. Everything else runs at once.


Overview

Input (task / PRD / SPEC / issues)
        │
        ▼
1. Decompose into nodes  ─────────►  nodes = {id, title, deps, criteria, scope}
        │
        ▼
2. Build DAG + validate  ─────────►  detect cycles, orphan deps
        │
        ▼
3. Topological layering  ─────────►  waves = [[n1,n2,n3], [n4,n5], [n6]]
        │
        ▼
4. Render graph + confirm with user
        │
        ▼  (write .graph_state + graph.html — open graph.html to watch live)
┌──────────── per wave (superstep) ────────────┐
│                                               │
│  FAN-OUT: 1 subagent per node (parallel)      │
│    each subagent, in its own git worktree:    │
│      /goal (inline implement) → /review-it    │
│                              → /ship-it        │
│                                               │
│  FAN-IN barrier: wait for ALL nodes           │
│    integrate, update .graph_state             │
│    re-render graph.html                        │
│    re-plan next wave if graph changed         │
│                                               │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────┘
        │
        ▼
All waves done → final summary

Step 1: Locate & Decompose Input

Accept any of: a free-form task description, a PRD/SPEC file, or an existing issue set (GitHub / local .md).

  • PRD/SPEC → reuse /to-issues decomposition rules (one node per User Story; split large, merge tiny).
  • Existing issues → each issue is a node; parse dependencies from issue bodies (Depends on: #3, Dependencies: #3, #5).
  • Free-form task → break into the smallest independently-shippable units yourself.

Each node MUST have:

Node #N
  title:      short imperative title
  deps:       [list of node ids] or []
  criteria:   acceptance criteria (checklist) — how the subagent knows it's done
  type:       backend | frontend | fullstack | ui | infra | docs
  scope_hint: which files/dirs this node is expected to touch (for conflict analysis)

scope_hint matters: two nodes with no dependency edge but overlapping file scope are not truly independent — see Step 3.


Step 2: Build the DAG & Validate

Construct edges from deps. Then validate:

CheckAction on failure
Cycle (A → B → A)Print ⚠️ 循环依赖: #A ↔ #B. Break by node id order, warn user, ask to confirm or fix.
Dangling dep (#7 depends on #99, no such node)Print warning, drop the phantom edge.
Scope collision (two dep-free nodes edit same files)Add a soft edge to serialize them (lower id first), OR flag for user. Never let two parallel worktrees fight over the same files.

Hot-file exception: A shared wiring file that nearly every node must touch (e.g. router.go, main.go, mod.rs, a DI container, an __init__ re-export) does NOT count as a scope collision — treating it as one would serialize the entire graph into a chain. For such files, assume append-only edits merge cleanly, and prefer one of: (a) designate a single node that owns wiring and have others expose a registration hook, or (b) do a tiny follow-up "wire everything" node in the last wave. Reserve the collision rule for nodes that edit the same logic in the same file (e.g. two handlers rewriting the same function).


Step 3: Topological Layering into Waves

Compute waves via Kahn's algorithm:

  1. Wave 0 = all nodes with deps == [] and no scope collision among themselves.
  2. Remove wave-0 nodes; Wave 1 = nodes whose deps are now all satisfied.
  3. Repeat until all nodes placed.
  4. Within a wave, if two nodes edit the same logic in the same file (real collision, per the hot-file exception in Step 2), push the higher-id one to the next wave. Bare wiring-file overlap does not trigger this.

ID conventions (used consistently): lower id wins — cycles break by lowest id first (Step 2), and scope collisions serialize with the lower id first (higher id deferred to the next wave).

Print the layered plan:

📊 Graph: 6 nodes, 3 waves

Wave 0 (parallel ×3):  #1 db schema   #2 config loader   #3 logging util
Wave 1 (parallel ×2):  #4 API handler (deps #1)   #5 CLI flags (deps #2)
Wave 2 (parallel ×1):  #6 integration (deps #4,#5)

Max parallelism: 3 subagents in Wave 0.

Also emit a Mermaid diagram for the user:

```mermaid
graph LR
  n1[#1 db schema] --> n4[#4 API handler]
  n2[#2 config loader] --> n5[#5 CLI flags]
  n3[#3 logging util]
  n4 --> n6[#6 integration]
  n5 --> n6
```

Wait for user confirmation before dispatching any subagent. Let them adjust nodes, deps, or the max-parallelism cap.


Step 4: Pre-flight Checks

Before the first wave (same spirit as /loop-it):

git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree   # in a repo?
git status --porcelain                # clean tree? (dirty → stash/abort)
git branch --show-current             # on main/master?
git ls-remote --heads origin          # remote reachable?
gh auth status                        # if shipping to GitHub

Any hard failure → print the error and stop. Confirm a max concurrency cap with the user (default 3–4 parallel subagents; more risks rate limits and review noise).

Then initialize the state channel + live tracker (do this once, right after the plan is confirmed and before the first fan-out):

# 1. Write the initial checkpoint (all nodes pending, current_wave 0).
cat > .graph_state <<'JSON'
{ "version": 1, "task": "...", "repo": "owner/repo",
  "waves": [[1,2,3],[4,5],[6]], "current_wave": 0,
  "nodes": { "1": {"title":"...","deps":[],"status":"pending","wave":0}, ... } }
JSON

# 2. Keep it out of git.
grep -qxF '.graph_state' .gitignore || printf '.graph_state\ngraph.html\n' >> .gitignore

# 3. Render the Claude-style light-theme dashboard.
python3 skills/graph/scripts/render_graph_html.py .graph_state graph.html

Tell the user: open graph.html in a browser — it auto-refreshes every 5s, so it tracks execution live (waves, node statuses, progress bar, and a Mermaid DAG colored by status). Re-run the render command at every checkpoint (see Step 5b) to push updates.


Step 5: Execute Wave by Wave (fan-out → fan-in)

For each wave, in order:

5a. FAN-OUT — one subagent per node, in parallel

Dispatch all nodes of the wave in a single response (multiple Agent/subagent calls in one message = concurrent). Each subagent works in its own git worktree so parallel file edits never collide:

# The orchestrator creates a worktree per node BEFORE dispatching:
git worktree add -b feat/node-{N}-{slug} ../.graph-worktrees/node-{N} main

Each subagent receives a self-contained prompt (it does NOT inherit orchestrator context):

You are implementing ONE node of a task graph, working in an ISOLATED git worktree.

Worktree:  ../.graph-worktrees/node-{N}   (already created on branch feat/node-{N}-{slug})
Node #{N}: {title}
Type:      {type}
Scope:     {scope_hint}  — stay within these files; do not touch other nodes' scope

Acceptance criteria (all must pass):
- [ ] {criterion 1}
- [ ] {criterion 2}

Context (deps already merged into main, pull first):
{summaries of dependency nodes' outputs, or the referenced PRD/SPEC excerpt}

Your pipeline (run all three, in order):
1. IMPLEMENT (inline /goal): read the node + any referenced PRD/SPEC, read adjacent
   code, implement to satisfy EVERY acceptance criterion, run build + tests + lint
   (e.g. go build ./... && go vet ./... && go test ./...). Iterate until all green.
2. REVIEW (/review-it): run code review on your changes, apply accepted findings,
   re-run focused tests, repeat until review is clean (max 2 rounds).
3. SHIP (/ship-it): commit (message references the node/issue), push branch,
   create PR, merge, close the issue.

Constraints:
- Work ONLY inside your worktree. Do NOT edit files outside {scope_hint}.
- Do NOT try to call `goal` via the Skill tool (it's a UI command, not a skill) —
  "implement" means you write the code yourself. /review-it and /ship-it ARE skills.
- If you cannot satisfy a criterion, STOP and report what's blocking — don't fake it.

Return: node id, PASS/FAIL, PR/commit refs, files changed, and — if you discovered new required work or a dependency the graph didn't capture — a `NEW_WORK:` line describing it (title + which nodes it blocks). Emit `NEW_WORK: none` if there's nothing.

Why worktrees, not branches alone: /goal mutates the working tree. Two subagents editing the same checkout would corrupt each other. A worktree per node gives each its own filesystem checkout on its own branch — that's what makes the wave genuinely parallel and safe.

5b. FAN-IN — barrier, integrate, re-plan

Wait for every subagent in the wave to return (BSP barrier — the next wave cannot start until this one commits). Then:

  1. Read each subagent's summary. Mark node shipped or failed.
  2. git checkout main && git pull — dependency outputs are now on main for the next wave.
  3. Remove finished worktrees: git worktree remove ../.graph-worktrees/node-{N} (keep failed ones for investigation).
  4. Write checkpoint to .graph_state, then re-render the tracker: python3 skills/graph/scripts/render_graph_html.py .graph_state graph.html (the open graph.html picks it up on its next auto-refresh).
  5. Dynamic re-plan (LangGraph-style conditional edge): scan each subagent's NEW_WORK: line. If any is not none, add the new node(s)/edge(s) and re-layer the remaining nodes before starting the next wave. Show the user the delta.
  6. If any node in the wave failed, mark all nodes that depend on it as blocked and skip them (their inputs aren't ready).

Proceed to the next wave.


State File: .graph_state (+ live tracker graph.html)

.graph_state lives at the repo root and must be in .gitignore. It's the single source of truth: checkpoint it after every wave so a crash resumes at the wave boundary, and re-render graph.html from it so the browser dashboard stays live. graph.html is a derived view — never hand-edit it; regenerate it from .graph_state.

{
  "version": 1,
  "updated_at": "2026-07-21T10:30:00Z",
  "task": "Add user auth",
  "repo": "owner/repo",
  "waves": [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5], [6]],
  "current_wave": 1,
  "nodes": {
    "1": { "title": "db schema", "deps": [], "status": "shipped", "branch": "feat/node-1-db-schema", "pr": 43, "wave": 0 },
    "2": { "title": "config loader", "deps": [], "status": "shipped", "wave": 0 },
    "3": { "title": "logging util", "deps": [], "status": "failed", "wave": 0, "error": "test TestLog failed", "attempts": 2 },
    "4": { "title": "API handler", "deps": [1], "status": "in_progress", "wave": 1 },
    "6": { "title": "integration", "deps": [4, 5], "status": "blocked", "wave": 2, "reason": "depends on #3 (failed)" }
  }
}

Status values: pending | in_progress | shipped | failed | blocked | skipped. Each node carries title + deps so graph.html can draw the DAG and cards straight from the checkpoint.

Render the tracker any time with:

python3 skills/graph/scripts/render_graph_html.py .graph_state graph.html

On resume: read .graph_state, skip shipped, ask about failed (retry/skip), re-derive remaining waves, and re-render graph.html.


Safety Guards

  • Worktree isolation is mandatory — never run two parallel /goal sessions in the same checkout.
  • Fan-in barrier is mandatory — never start wave N+1 before every node in wave N returns and merges.
  • Scope collisions serialize — dep-free nodes touching the same files go in different waves.
  • Never skip /review-it before /ship-it.
  • Cap concurrency — default 3–4; more invites rate limits and merge contention.
  • Never force-push to main. Each node ships via its own branch/PR.
  • Failed node blocks its dependents — don't ship on top of unmet inputs.
  • Max retries per node — reuse /loop-it's error classes; don't loop forever.
  • Confirm the plan before the first fan-out.

Common Mistakes

MistakeFix
Dispatching subagents in separate responsesOne response, multiple calls = parallel. Separate = sequential.
No worktree → parallel edits corrupt the treeOne git worktree per node.
Two "independent" nodes edit the same fileAdd a soft edge; put them in different waves.
Starting the next wave before all nodes mergeEnforce the fan-in barrier.
Over-decomposing into 20 trivial nodesMerge tiny units; a node should be a meaningful shippable unit.
Ignoring a failed node's dependentsMark them blocked, skip them.

Relationship to Other Skills

/prd → /prd-to-spec → /to-issues ─┬─► /loop-it   (sequential: one node at a time)
                                   └─► /graph     (parallel: whole wave at once)
                                          │
                     each node: inline /goal → /review-it → /ship-it (in its own worktree)
  • /to-issues — decomposition rules reused for building nodes.
  • /loop-it — sequential counterpart; use it when nodes heavily share files or serial safety matters.
  • /graph — this skill; use it when the DAG has genuine parallelism (independent subsystems).
  • /review-it, /ship-it — real skills each node's subagent invokes.

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.