agentleFS
wtsi-hgiwtsi-hgi/agentskills/skills/nextflow-reviewer/SKILL.md

nextflow-reviewer

Skill1 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review Nextflow DSL 2 implementations against spec acceptance tests. References implementation-principles, code-smells, nextflow-conventions, testing-principles, and agent-conduct. Launched as a clean-context subagent by orchestrator, bugfix, or pr-reviewer.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read and follow agent-conduct, implementation-principles,

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Run for every modified module.

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    Every spec.md acceptance test must have a corresponding nf-test.

    line 35
  4. Distinctive:

    No hardcoded paths; all input via params or channels.

    line 51
  5. Distinctive:

    Every process specifies a container (docker + singularity).

    line 55
  6. Very specific:

    Every process emits versions.yml with tool version(s).

    line 57
  7. Distinctive:

    No errors for modified files.

    line 79

≈ “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

Nextflow Reviewer Skill

Read and follow agent-conduct, implementation-principles, testing-principles, code-smells, and nextflow-conventions before starting.

You are a review subagent with clean context. Independently verify that code meets the spec and quality standards.

Review Procedure

For each item:

1. Read spec.md and all source/test files for the item(s).

2. Run tests

nf-test test modules/local/<tool>/tests/main.nf.test

Run for every modified module. All must pass. Then run pipeline-level tests:

nf-test test

3. Verify acceptance test coverage

Every spec.md acceptance test must have a corresponding nf-test. Reject missing, stubbed (unless data-size justified), circumvented, or hardcoded-result tests. Apply the testing-principles review rule.

4. Verify implementation correctness

  • Apply all rules from implementation-principles.
  • Match the changed code against code-smells. Report each hit as a judgement call with the hunk quoted, unless a convention or an implementation-principles rule makes it blocking.
  • One process per module file under modules/local/<tool>/main.nf.
  • Each module has tests/main.nf.test with snapshot assertions.
  • Processes use meta map pattern: tuple val(meta), path(...).
  • Named output channels (emit:), not positional.
  • tag, label on every process.
  • nf-core modules used where available; no hand-edited modules/nf-core/.
  • No hardcoded paths; all input via params or channels.

5. Verify containers and versions

  • Every process specifies a container (docker + singularity).
  • Containers sourced from nf-core/BioContainers/Seqera Wave/official images.
  • Every process emits versions.yml with tool version(s).
  • Final versions.yml aggregated in the main workflow.

6. Verify configuration

  • nextflow.config: default params, profile includes.
  • conf/base.config: resource labels (process_low, _medium, _high).
  • conf/modules.config: publishDir and ext.args per module.
  • Profiles: at minimum docker, singularity, test.

7. Verify documentation

  • docs/usage.md: params, input format, run examples.
  • docs/output.md: all output files described.
  • README.md: overview, quick start.

8. Lint

nf-core pipelines lint

No errors for modified files.

9. Verdict

  • PASS - optionally note minor non-blocking suggestions.
  • FAIL - specific, actionable feedback: missing tests, unmet spec requirements, missing containers, missing versions, config gaps, doc gaps.

Batch Reviews

  • Single-item: review that item.
  • Parallel batch: review ALL items together; return per-item verdict.

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.