| name | workflow-creation |
| title | Workflow Creation Skill |
| description | Create a new Stencila workflow. Use when asked to create, write, scaffold, or set up a workflow directory or WORKFLOW.md file. Covers workflow discovery, duplicate-name checks, ephemeral workflows, WORKFLOW.md frontmatter, DOT pipeline authoring, goals, agents, branching, composition, and validation. |
| keywords | ["workflow","pipeline","create","scaffold","write","set up","WORKFLOW.md"] |
| allowed-tools | read_file write_file edit_file apply_patch glob grep shell ask_user list_agents list_workflows |
Overview
Create a new workflow directory and WORKFLOW.md file for Stencila. A workflow is a directory under .stencila/workflows/ containing a WORKFLOW.md file with YAML frontmatter and a Markdown body. The body should begin with a short human-readable explanation of what the workflow does and how it works, followed by a dot fenced code block that defines the pipeline, and then any additional documentation or referenced content blocks.
Use this skill when the user wants to define a multi-stage AI workflow, orchestrate several agent or human steps, or scaffold a reusable pipeline that can be validated and run with Stencila.
Steps
- Determine the workflow name, description, and intended goal from the user's request
- Validate the name against the naming rules below
- Resolve the closest workspace by walking up from the current directory to find the nearest
.stencila/ directory; if none exists, use the repository root or current working directory and create .stencila/workflows/<name>/
- Ask clarifying questions if the workflow's stages, branching behavior, composition boundaries, agents, or goal are unclear
- Check whether a workflow with the same name already exists in the target workspace; if it does, ask whether to overwrite, merge, or abort before changing anything
- Decide whether the workflow should be permanent or ephemeral:
- default to a normal permanent workflow unless the user asks for a temporary workflow or the creating tool explicitly uses ephemeral creation
- prefer ephemeral workflows for agent-created drafts, quick experiments, or workflows the user may want to discard after immediate use
- if ephemeral, plan to mark the workflow directory using a
.gitignore sentinel file containing *
- Create the directory
<closest-workspace>/.stencila/workflows/<name>/
- Write
WORKFLOW.md with:
- YAML frontmatter containing at least
name and description
goal-hint when the workflow expects user-supplied goals (see Optional frontmatter fields below); use goal only when the workflow has a stable, fixed objectivekeywords with domain-relevant terms and when-to-use/when-not-to-use entries to improve discoverability and delegation accuracy- A Markdown body that begins with a short human-readable explanation of the workflow, followed by a
dot fenced code block containing the workflow pipeline, and then any additional referenced content blocks or documentation
- If ephemeral, create the
.gitignore sentinel file with exactly * on its own line; if permanent, do not add that sentinel
- Prefer a simple linear pipeline first, then add branching, retry loops, conditions, human review, workflow composition, or agent overrides only when the user asks for them or the workflow clearly needs them
- Use
list_agents and list_workflows when agent selection or workflow composition matters, so you can choose from real available resources instead of guessing names:
- match
description to the task and keywords to domain terms
- use
when-to-use for positive signals and when-not-to-use to avoid poor matches
- Reference agents by name with
agent="name" and child workflows with workflow="name":
- prefer specialized resources returned by the list tools
- do not invent names unless the user requests them, they are clear project conventions, or the workflow is being designed top-down
- Top-down design: When the user wants to design the workflow structure first and create dependencies afterward:
- name planned agents and child workflows using kebab-case names that follow naming conventions
- note which ones need to be created and inform the user of the outstanding dependencies
- validation and the runtime accept forward references (unresolved agents produce a runtime warning, not an error), so the workflow can be authored and iterated on before all dependencies are in place
- Replace placeholders such as
TODO before considering the workflow complete
- Validate the finished workflow with
stencila workflows validate <name>, the workflow directory path, or the WORKFLOW.md path, and report the result to the user when possible
When working from a nested directory in a repository, create the workflow in the closest workspace's .stencila/workflows/ directory rather than creating a new .stencila/ tree under the current subdirectory.
Naming Rules
Workflow names must be lowercase kebab-case:
- 1–64 characters
- Only lowercase alphanumeric characters and hyphens (
a-z, 0-9, -)
- Must not start or end with a hyphen
- Must not contain consecutive hyphens (
--)
- Must match the parent directory name
- Pattern:
^[a-z0-9]([a-z0-9-]{0,62}[a-z0-9])?$
By convention, workflow names should describe the end-to-end process the workflow accomplishes, not the exact sequence of steps in the graph.
Use these naming patterns:
thing-process for the default casething-process-approach when you need to distinguish multiple workflows for the same process
Where:
thing is the artifact or domain the workflow acts on, such as code, blog, agent, or schemaprocess is the broad lifecycle stage or end-to-end goal, such as generation, refinement, publication, review, or creationapproach is an optional qualifier for strategy or tradeoffs, such as quick, iterative, consensus, thorough, or guided
Prefer names that communicate purpose rather than pipeline shape. Avoid brittle names that list every step, such as create-review-refine-test-deploy or plan-implement-validate, because they become outdated as the workflow evolves.
Good examples:
code-reviewcode-generation-iterativeblog-generation-quickarchitecture-design-consensusagent-creation-guided
Common corrections: workflowBuilder → workflow-builder, test_deploy → test-deploy, Code-Review → code-review.
WORKFLOW.md Format
The file has two parts:
- YAML frontmatter between
--- delimiters — metadata such as name, description, and optional goal
- Markdown body — a short human-readable explanation of the workflow, then a DOT pipeline in the first
dot fenced code block, then optional additional documentation and referenced content blocks
Required frontmatter fields
name — the workflow name (must match directory name)description — what the workflow does and when to use it; keep it concise and specific
Optional frontmatter fields
goal-hint — hint text displayed across user interfaces (TUI, web, email, Slack, etc.) when the workflow is activated, guiding the user to provide a specific goal (e.g., "What kind of analysis do you want to perform?"). Most workflows should include this because most workflows expect the user to supply their own objective at run time. The user's response becomes $goal at runtime. This field is a UI hint and is never substituted into prompts directlygoal — a fixed high-level objective for the workflow; use only when the workflow has a stable, predetermined intent that prompts interpolate as $goal. Omit generic goals that merely restate the workflow's purpose (e.g., "Produce an acceptable X for the requested purpose") — they add no value and clutter the user interface with unhelpful pre-filled textkeywords — list of keywords or tags for discovery and routing; use terms that reflect the workflow's domain and purposewhen-to-use — list of positive selection signals describing when this workflow should be used; helps managers choose the right workflowwhen-not-to-use — list of negative selection signals describing when this workflow should not be usedlicense — SPDX identifier or reference to a license file if neededcompatibility — environment requirements (max 500 characters)metadata — arbitrary key-value pairs if the workflow needs extra structured metadata
Ephemeral status is not stored in frontmatter. It is determined by whether the workflow directory has a .gitignore sentinel file containing exactly *.
DOT Pipeline Expectations
- Start the Markdown body with a short human-readable explanation of what the workflow does and how it works, then put the executable pipeline in the first
dot fenced code block
- Use a directed graph such as
digraph code_review { ... }
- Add graph attributes in
graph [...] only when required by execution semantics or to match an existing project style
- Use node attributes such as
prompt, agent, and ask where needed
- For session persistence, prefer the
persist shorthand when a node should retain its own conversational context but that thread does not need to be shared with other nodes; this is the simplest and preferred sugar for per-node persistence
- When multiple sequential nodes should share one conversation session, do not rely on
persist alone because it auto-generates a distinct thread-id per node. Instead, set an explicit shared thread-id with fidelity="full", or use graph-level defaults default-fidelity="full" and default-thread-id="..." for a whole shared thread
- Do not reuse the same
thread-id across different agents or across parallel branches; shared threads should usually stay within one agent and one sequential path
- For long or multiline prompts, shell scripts, or human questions, use reusable fenced code blocks with ids and reference them via
prompt-ref, shell-ref, ask-ref, or interview-ref instead of embedding long strings in DOT. Do not use refs for short single-line values
- Use
interview-ref (pointing to a YAML block with preamble, typed questions, and store keys) when a human review step collects multiple pieces of information; use ask or ask-ref for single-question gates
- Use
show-if on interview questions to conditionally display them based on a previous answer (e.g., show-if: "decision == Revise" to ask for revision notes only when the reviewer chose to revise); use finish-if on yes-no, confirm, or single-select questions to end the interview early when the answer matches a value (e.g., finish-if: "no" to skip remaining questions when the user declines to continue)
- When an
agent node has multiple outgoing edges with labels, the engine provides routing instructions (via workflow_set_route tool or XML tag fallback). Give each outgoing edge a descriptive label (e.g., Accept, Revise, Pass, Fail) and the agent will signal its choice. Edge conditions take priority over preferred labels, so both mechanisms can coexist
- In iterative workflows, prefer tool-based context retrieval (
workflow_get_output, workflow_get_context) over $last_output / $human.feedback interpolation — this avoids bloating prompts with long prior outputs. Write prompts that say "check for reviewer feedback" instead of embedding variables inline. Reserve $-variable interpolation for short values ($goal, $last_stage) and for shell commands and edge conditions where tools are unavailable
- Use edges to express sequencing, branching, retry loops, and approval paths
- Use a
FanOut… node ID prefix for parallel fan-out — all outgoing edges from the fan-out node execute concurrently and reconverge at a downstream fan-in point. Set join_policy (wait_all or first_success), error_policy (fail_fast, continue, or ignore), and max_parallel (default 4) as needed. The fan-in node is detected automatically by structural convergence or can be made explicit with a FanIn… node ID prefix or shape=tripleoctagon. Static fan-out has a fixed number of branches defined by the outgoing edges in the DOT graph. For dynamic fan-out where the number of branches is determined at runtime, use fan-out="key" on a node to fan out over a list stored in the pipeline context under that key; the node must have exactly one outgoing edge pointing to the template entry node, and a fan-in node (explicit FanIn… prefix or shape=tripleoctagon) must follow the template subgraph to collect the results
- Shell nodes can use
store="key" to write their stdout into the pipeline context, with optional store-as="json" or store-as="string" to control parsing (default: try JSON, fall back to string). This is the typical way to produce the list that a dynamic fan-out consumes — a shell node outputs a JSON array and stores it with store="items" store-as="json", then a downstream fan-out node references fan-out="items". Alternatively, an agent node with context-writable=true can produce a list by calling workflow_set_context with a JSON array value (e.g., fan-out="items")
- Use
workflow="child-name" on a node to run another workflow as a composed subprocess. Use goal="..." to pass an explicit child objective; if omitted, the child goal defaults to the node's resolved input (prompt, then label). Keep the parent focused on orchestration and the child on detailed execution; avoid composing trivial one-step tasks unless reuse is likely
- Prefer
persist="full" (or another persist mode) over spelling out fidelity and thread-id when you only want per-node carryover sugar and do not need multiple nodes to share the same thread
- Do not create direct or indirect composition cycles; workflow nesting should remain acyclic. Current validation rejects direct self-reference, and indirect cycles should also be avoided even if they are not yet detected statically
- Prefer the house style of placing the entry edge near the top, then organizing each node as a block: node definition followed immediately by its outgoing edge or edges
- Forward references to agents and child workflows are valid — see step 13 (Top-down design)
- Prefer explicit agent selection over relying on the default agent fallback, unless the user wants a minimal draft. When a node has no
agent attribute, the engine uses a default agent — note this to the user when it matters
- Stencila resolves agent names in order: workspace agents → user-level agents → CLI-detected agents
- Use the
ask property for explicit human approval or review steps
- Prefer
goal-hint over goal for most workflows; see Optional frontmatter fields for the distinction
- Keep the initial scaffold minimal and readable unless the user explicitly asks for a complex pipeline
The recommended body structure is: a short human-readable explanation of the workflow before the first DOT block, then the DOT pipeline, then any additional referenced content blocks or documentation. Only the first DOT block is extracted as the pipeline definition.
Reusable content references resolve against code blocks or code chunks with ids in the same WORKFLOW.md. Use them mainly for longer content, for example:
```dot
digraph example {
Create [agent="writer", prompt-ref="#creator-prompt"]
Check [shell-ref="#run-checks"]
Ask [ask-ref="#human-question", question-type="freeform"]
Review [interview-ref="#review-interview"]
}
```
```markdown #creator-prompt
Create or revise the draft for this goal: $goal
Check for reviewer feedback from a previous iteration and revise rather than restart.
```
```sh #run-checks
cargo fmt -p workflows && cargo test -p workflows
```
```markdown #human-question
What should change before the next revision?
```
```yaml #review-interview
preamble: |
Please review the draft and provide structured feedback.
questions:
- header: Decision
question: Is the draft ready to publish?
type: single-select
options:
- label: Approve
- label: Revise
store: review.decision
- header: Feedback
question: What specific changes should be made?
store: review.feedback
```
Ids must be unique within the document.
Ephemeral Workflows
An ephemeral workflow is a temporary workflow directory under .stencila/workflows/ that includes a .gitignore file containing exactly:
*
This sentinel marks the workflow as temporary without adding any special frontmatter or DOT attributes.
Use ephemeral workflows when:
- the workflow is being created by an agent for immediate execution
- the user wants a draft or throwaway workflow
- the workflow should be easy to discard if the user does not keep it
Do not make a workflow ephemeral unless the user asks for temporary behavior or the surrounding flow clearly implies it.
When describing the result, explain whether the workflow is ephemeral or permanent. If ephemeral, mention stencila workflows save <name> to keep it and stencila workflows discard <name> to remove it.
Common Workflow Patterns
Linear agent-driven workflow
---
name: lit-review
description: Search and summarize recent literature
goal: Review recent literature on CRISPR gene editing
---
This workflow searches for recent papers, summarizes the key findings, and drafts a literature review.
```dot
digraph lit_review {
Start -> Search
Search [prompt="Search for recent papers on: $goal"]
Search -> Summarize
Summarize [prompt="Summarize the key findings across the papers"]
Summarize -> Draft
Draft [prompt="Draft a literature review from the summaries"]
Draft -> End
}
```
Agent-driven workflow with structured review interview
---
name: code-review-guided
description: Automated code review with structured human feedback
goal: Implement and review the feature with detailed feedback
---
This workflow designs, builds, and reviews code changes using a structured human review interview that collects both a routing decision and detailed feedback.
```dot
digraph code_review_guided {
Start -> Design
Design [agent="code-planner", prompt="Design the solution for: $goal"]
Design -> Build
Build [agent="code-engineer", prompt="Implement the design"]
Build -> Review
Review [interview-ref="#review-interview"]
Review -> End [label="Approve"]
Review -> Design [label="Revise"]
}
```
```yaml #review-interview
preamble: |
Please review the implementation and provide structured feedback.
questions:
- header: Decision
question: Is the implementation ready to merge?
type: single-select
options:
- label: Approve
- label: Revise
store: review.decision
finish-if: Approve
- header: Revision Notes
question: What specific changes should be made?
show-if: "review.decision == Revise"
store: review.feedback
```
Agent-driven review with label routing
When an LLM agent decides the branch, use labeled edges without conditions.
---
name: draft-review-iterative
description: Draft and iteratively refine with agent-driven review
goal-hint: What would you like drafted and refined?
---
This workflow uses a writer agent to create or revise a draft, then a reviewer agent to evaluate it. The reviewer chooses between Accept and Revise branches via `workflow_set_route`. On acceptance, the draft enters a structured human review interview where the user can accept or request further revisions with feedback. The `Create` node retrieves reviewer feedback via `workflow_get_output` and human revision notes via `workflow_get_context` to keep prompts compact across iterations.
```dot
digraph draft_review_iterative {
Start -> Create
Create [agent="writer", prompt-ref="#creator-prompt"]
Create -> Review
Review [agent="reviewer", prompt-ref="#reviewer-prompt"]
Review -> HumanReview [label="Accept"]
Review -> Create [label="Revise"]
HumanReview [interview-ref="#human-review-interview"]
HumanReview -> End [label="Accept"]
HumanReview -> Create [label="Revise"]
}
```
```markdown #creator-prompt
Create or update the draft for: $goal
Before starting, check for reviewer feedback from a previous iteration. If feedback is present, use it to revise the existing draft instead of starting over. Also check for human revision notes and incorporate those as well.
```
```markdown #reviewer-prompt
Review the current draft for the goal '$goal'.
If the draft is acceptable, choose the Accept branch.
If the draft needs changes, choose the Revise branch and provide specific feedback in your response.
```
```yaml #human-review-interview
preamble: |
The reviewer agent has approved the current draft.
Please review and decide whether to accept or revise.
questions:
- header: Decision
question: Is the draft acceptable?
type: single-select
options:
- label: Accept
- label: Revise
store: human.decision
finish-if: Accept
- header: Revision Notes
question: What changes should be made?
store: human.feedback
show-if: "human.decision == Revise"
```
Condition-based branching
Use edge conditions for deterministic routing based on handler status. Unlike label routing above, condition-based branching evaluates structured outcome fields.
---
name: code-review
description: Automated code review with human approval gate
goal: Implement and review the feature
---
This workflow designs, builds, and tests a code change, then routes to human review on success or loops back on test failure. The human reviewer can approve or send the change back for revision.
```dot
digraph code_review {
Start -> Design
Design [agent="code-planner", prompt="Design the solution for: $goal"]
Design -> Build
Build [agent="code-engineer", prompt="Implement the design"]
Build -> Test
Test [agent="code-tester", prompt="Run tests and validate"]
Test -> Review [label="Pass", condition="outcome=success"]
Test -> Build [label="Fail", condition="outcome!=success"]
Review [ask="Review the code changes"]
Review -> End [label="Approve"]
Review -> Design [label="Revise"]
}
```
Parallel fan-out
Use a FanOut… node ID prefix to execute independent branches concurrently. Branches reconverge at a shared downstream node (the fan-in point), which can be made explicit with a FanIn… node ID prefix or shape=tripleoctagon. Use this pattern when the workflow has multiple independent tasks that do not depend on each other's output — for example, searching different sources, running independent analyses, or generating alternative candidates.
Fan-out can be static or dynamic. Static fan-out has a fixed number of branches defined by the outgoing edges in the DOT graph. Dynamic fan-out uses fan-out="key" to iterate over a runtime list stored in the pipeline context, spawning one branch per item — use this when the number of items is not known until execution time.
Static fan-out
---
name: literature-search-parallel
description: Search multiple sources in parallel and synthesize findings
goal-hint: What topic should the literature search cover?
---
This workflow fans out to three independent source searches in parallel, then synthesizes their combined results into a unified review.
```dot
digraph literature_search_parallel {
Start -> FanOut
FanOut [label="Search sources in parallel"]
FanOut -> Databases
FanOut -> Preprints
FanOut -> Reviews
Databases [prompt="Search published databases (PubMed, Scopus) for: $goal"]
Databases -> Synthesize
Preprints [prompt="Search preprint servers (bioRxiv, arXiv) for: $goal"]
Preprints -> Synthesize
Reviews [prompt="Search existing review articles for: $goal"]
Reviews -> Synthesize
Synthesize [prompt="Synthesize findings across all sources into a unified review"]
Synthesize -> End
}
```
Dynamic fan-out
Use a shell node with store and store-as to produce a runtime list, then a FanOut… node with fan-out="key" to iterate over it. The fan-out node must have exactly one outgoing edge pointing to the template entry node. A fan-in node collects the results after the template subgraph. Alternatively, an agent node with context-writable=true can populate the list by calling workflow_set_context with a JSON array value (e.g., key items), which the downstream fan-out node references with fan-out="items".
---
name: batch-analysis
description: Dynamically analyze items discovered at runtime
goal-hint: What kind of items should be discovered and analyzed?
---
This workflow discovers items with a shell command, fans out dynamically to process each one in parallel, then merges the results.
```dot
digraph batch_analysis {
Start -> Discover
Discover [shell="find src -name '*.rs' -printf '%f\\n' | head -20 | jq -R -s 'split(\"\\n\") | map(select(. != \"\"))'", store="items", store-as="json"]
Discover -> FanOutItems
FanOutItems [fan-out="items", label="Process each item"]
FanOutItems -> Analyze
Analyze [prompt="Analyze $fan_out.item and produce a summary"]
Analyze -> FanInResults
FanInResults [label="Merge results"]
FanInResults -> Report
Report [prompt="Compile all analysis summaries into a final report"]
Report -> End
}
```
Practical Workflow Design Guidance
Design the workflow so that each stage makes visible progress toward the goal instead of just adding more prompts. Start from the user's real objective, then map it to stages such as research, plan, build, test, review, and publish.
- Break broad objectives into stages that reduce uncertainty or produce a concrete artifact for the next step
- For each non-trivial node, be able to state its input, output, success condition, and revision path
- Prefer node prompts that describe the local task; use frontmatter
goal for the stable overall objective
- After major generative steps, add a test, review, critique, or approval gate when the next action depends on quality
- Add loops only when a later node can provide specific feedback that improves an earlier node
- Base branches on meaningful decisions such as pass/fail, approve/revise, or sufficient/insufficient evidence
- Use human approval when the workflow crosses a trust boundary such as publish, deploy, or accept consequential changes
- If a stage does not change what the workflow knows, decides, or produces, it is usually unnecessary
- Alternate generation and evaluation so later steps decide whether earlier work is good enough to continue
- Use parallel fan-out (via a
FanOut… node ID prefix) when the workflow has independent tasks that can run concurrently, such as searching multiple sources or generating alternative approaches. Ensure all branches are truly independent — if one branch needs another's output, use sequential edges instead. When the set of items is known at design time, use static fan-out with explicit branches; when items are determined at runtime (e.g., discovered by a shell command or produced by a prior agent), use dynamic fan-out with fan-out="key" over a stored list
Common shapes by objective type (simplify or extend to fit the request):
| Objective type | Typical shape |
|---|
| Research / literature review | clarify → search → extract → synthesize → critique → draft |
| Coding / implementation | clarify → design → implement → test → review → approve |
| Publishing / editorial | brief → draft → edit → fact-check → approve → publish |
| Decision support | define criteria → gather options → evaluate → compare → recommend → approve |
| Data analysis | define question → collect → clean → analyze → interpret → review |
Example Walkthrough
Input: "Create a workflow that designs, implements, tests, and then asks for human approval before finishing"
Process: Derive name code-generation-iterative (process-oriented, not step-by-step like plan-implement-validate). Resolve workspace, check for duplicates, write the file, and validate.
Output:
---
name: code-generation-iterative
description: Generate and refine a requested software change through design, implementation, testing, and review
goal: Implement and validate the requested feature
---
This workflow designs an implementation plan, builds it, runs tests, and gates progression on test success. On failure, it loops back to rebuild. On success, a human reviewer can approve or send the change back to redesign.
```dot
digraph code_generation_iterative {
Start -> Design
Design [prompt="Design an implementation plan for: $goal"]
Design -> Build
Build [prompt="Implement the approved design"]
Build -> Test
Test [prompt="Run or describe validation steps and report the outcome"]
Test -> Review [label="Pass", condition="outcome=success"]
Test -> Build [label="Fail", condition="outcome!=success"]
Review [ask="Review the implementation"]
Review -> End [label="Approve"]
Review -> Design [label="Revise"]
}
```
Validated with: stencila workflows validate code-generation-iterative
Ephemeral Example
Input: "Create a temporary workflow I can try once to summarize a set of notes"
Output structure:
.stencila/workflows/note-summary/
├── .gitignore # contains exactly: *
└── WORKFLOW.md
Example WORKFLOW.md:
---
name: note-summary
description: Summarize a temporary set of notes
goal: Summarize the provided notes into a concise brief
---
A simple one-step workflow that summarizes notes into a concise brief.
```dot
digraph note_summary {
Start -> Summarize -> End
Summarize [prompt="Summarize the notes for: $goal"]
}
```
Validated with: stencila workflows validate note-summary
Edge Cases
- Workflow directory already exists: Ask the user whether to overwrite, merge, or abort before modifying an existing workflow. Never silently overwrite.
- Name mismatch: If the requested name is not valid kebab-case, suggest a corrected version rather than failing silently.
- Nested workspaces: If multiple
.stencila/ directories exist in the ancestor chain, use the nearest one. Do not create a duplicate .stencila/workflows/ tree.
- Empty or placeholder content: Do not consider the workflow complete if any
TODO, <placeholder>, or empty description remains in the final WORKFLOW.md.
- No DOT block: A workflow without a DOT block may still be partially drafted, but it is incomplete for execution; add a valid first
dot block before reporting completion unless the user explicitly asks for documentation only.
- Missing goal:
goal is optional — omit it if the user has not provided a stable objective. Use goal-hint when the workflow expects a user-supplied goal (the common case).
- Unknown agents or child workflows: List outstanding dependencies so the user can create them. This is valid in top-down design (see step 13) — validation passes, and the runtime falls back to a default agent for unresolved names. Do not remove references just because the targets do not exist yet.
- Overriding agent properties: Use inline
agent.* attributes sparingly; prefer reusable agent definitions unless the user clearly needs a node-specific override.
- Ephemeral status: Do not add custom frontmatter like
ephemeral: true; ephemeral workflows are identified solely by the .gitignore sentinel file containing *.
Validation
Before finishing, validate the workflow:
stencila workflows validate <workflow-name>
stencila workflows validate .stencila/workflows/<workflow-name>
stencila workflows validate .stencila/workflows/<workflow-name>/WORKFLOW.md
Validation should pass before you report the workflow as complete.
Limitations
- This skill covers workflow structure, metadata, and authoring conventions. It does not execute the workflow or verify runtime behavior. Some design issues may only surface during execution.
