engineering/workflow-builder/skills/workflow-builder/SKILL.md
Design and write deterministic multi-agent workflow scripts (.js files in .claude/workflows/) for Claude Code's Workflow tool. Use when a user wants to build, create, author, scaffold, or run a custom Claude Code workflow, orchestrate sub-agents (fan-out, pipeline, loop, judge-panel), or automate a repeatable multi-step task across fresh-context agents.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills workflow-builderInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Author runnable workflow scripts for Claude Code's Workflow tool: deterministic multi-agent orchestration files (.js) that fan work out to fresh-context sub-agents under plain JavaScript control flow. Only leaf agent() calls spend tokens, so the main session stays clean and the whole run is resumable.
Before proposing or writing any workflow, run the intake. Do not skip to code.
Ask what kind of workflow they want. Use this opening question set:
If the user is vague, do NOT stall. Run the recommendation engine to turn whatever you have into 1-2 concrete proposals, then present them with the reasoning:
python scripts/workflow_intake.py --task "their description" \
--units unknown --stages unknown --needs-all unknown --structured unknown
The engine returns a recommended topology (fan-out / pipeline / loop / barrier / judge-panel), model picks, a budget guard, and a one-line rationale per choice. Present those as "Here's what I'd build and why" — never ask the user to re-answer questions they already half-answered.
Confirm the shape with the user (topology + phases + parallel-vs-pipeline) before writing the file. This is the only approval gate.
See references/decision_and_intake_guide.md for the full question framework, the vague-input playbook, and worked recommendation examples.
| Scenario | Use | |----------|-----| | Single sub-agent, one task | plain Agent tool | | Reusable procedure, Claude picks steps dynamically | a Skill | | Many sub-agents in a fixed topology, deterministic + resumable | Workflow ✓ |
Workflows earn their cost when work is parallel or multi-stage, must be reproducible, long enough to fail halfway (so resume matters), or benefits from isolating each step in its own context window. For one-off tasks, just use Claude directly.
python scripts/scaffold_workflow.py --topology pipeline --name pr-triage \
--description "Triage open PRs" > .claude/workflows/pr-triage.js
meta block first (pure literal, first statement), then the async body using the injected globals — agent(), pipeline(), parallel(), phase(), log(), budget, args, workflow(). Full surface in references/api_reference.md; copy-paste shapes in references/orchestration_patterns.md.python scripts/validate_workflow.py .claude/workflows/pr-triage.js
export CLAUDE_CODE_WORKFLOWS=1, save the file under .claude/workflows/, then use /workflows to launch and watch it live. Press P to pause/resume, X to skip a sub-agent. Failed agents retry automatically.meta is a pure literal and the first statement — no variables, spreads, template strings, or function calls inside it.Date.now(), Math.random(), argless new Date() break resume — pass timestamps via args.require, fs, process, network) in the orchestrator — that work belongs inside agent() prompts.parallel() takes thunks (() => agent(...)), not bare promises. Default to pipeline() unless a stage needs the whole prior result set.budget.remaining() check — unguarded loops hit the 1000-agent cap.results.filter(Boolean).scripts/workflow_intake.py — intake recommendation engine (topology + model + budget + rationale from vague input).scripts/validate_workflow.py — stdlib linter for the rules above; PASS / WARN / FAIL with line numbers.scripts/scaffold_workflow.py — generate a starter .js for any topology.assets/templates/ — fan-out, pipeline, loop-until-budget starters. assets/examples/ — a complete runnable workflow.All scripts run with --sample (no args) and --help.
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.