| name | create-workflow |
| description | Author a new agent-almanac workflow — a self-contained `.mjs` orchestration script run by Claude Code's Workflow tool. Covers choosing a workflow over a team, copying the template, the triple-name discovery contract, the pure-literal meta and sidecar frontmatter, building the body with the injected primitives, the advisory/implementing capability contract, the adversarial-verification fail-safes, validation, and manual installation. Use when you have a repeatable, parameterized procedure that coordinates several agents and want it captured as a reusable, auditable artifact whose control flow is fixed in code.
|
| license | MIT |
| allowed-tools | Read Write Edit Bash Grep Glob |
| metadata | {"author":"Philipp Thoss","version":"1.0","domain":"general","complexity":"intermediate","language":"multi","tags":"meta, workflow, creation, orchestration"} |
Create a New Workflow
Author a workflow — the fifth content type — as a self-contained workflows/<name>.mjs script run by Claude Code's Workflow tool. A workflow fixes its phases, fan-out, and verification structure in JavaScript: its control flow is deterministic and rereadable, while the outputs of its agent() calls are LLM subagents and remain nondeterministic. This skill is the procedure for authoring one; guides/creating-workflows.md is the API reference it draws on.
Vendor-API caveat. The Workflow run model is generally available on paid Claude Code plans (~v2.1.154+), but the script-authoring surface (the injected agent() / parallel() / pipeline() / phase() / log() / workflow() primitives and the args / budget globals) is an evolving vendor API — accurate as observed in Claude Code v2.1.x, subject to change, never CI-enforced.
When to Use
- You have a repeatable, parameterized procedure that coordinates several agents and want it captured as a reusable artifact whose shape you already know.
- You need a review, research, or migration procedure to run the same way every time, with the fan-out and verification logic auditable in code rather than re-decided by a lead each run.
- You are adding a reviewed seed to the
workflows/ library, or authoring a personal workflow for .claude/workflows/.
- You are deciding between writing a team and a workflow — read Step 1 first.
Inputs
- Required: Workflow name (lowercase kebab-case, e.g.,
review-changes). This becomes the filename stem, the sidecar name:, and meta.name — all three must be identical.
- Required: Purpose (one paragraph: what repeatable procedure this codifies and why its control flow should be fixed in code).
- Required: Phase plan (the named stages, e.g., Classify → Verify → Synthesize) and the fan-out shape (per-item
pipeline() vs barrier parallel()).
- Optional: Parameters the workflow accepts via
args (default them so it runs with no input).
- Optional: Source material (an existing ad-hoc multi-agent procedure to formalize).
Procedure
Step 1: Confirm a Workflow Is the Right Tool
A workflow is one of five content types. Choose deliberately:
- A skill is how one agent performs a procedure. A team is a declarative roster the lead coordinates at runtime (model-driven, adaptive). A workflow is a script whose phases and fan-out are fixed in code (deterministic control flow, auditable, parameterized).
- Pick a workflow only when the coordination shape is known in advance and you want it repeatable and rereadable. If the right next step depends on what the last step found, pick a team instead.
Expected: A one-line justification for why this is a workflow and not a team or a single skill.
On failure: If the coordination must adapt turn-by-turn, stop and use create-team. If only one agent acts, use create-skill.
Step 2: Copy the Template
Start from the canonical scaffold — never a blank file:
cp workflows/_template.mjs workflows/<name>.mjs
For a personal (non-library) workflow, copy into .claude/workflows/<name>.mjs instead. The template carries the sidecar block, a pure-literal meta, a phase(), a pipeline() fan-out, an agent({ schema }) call, and the hard constraints inline.
Expected: A new .mjs file that is a verbatim copy of the template.
On failure: If workflows/_template.mjs is missing, you are on a pre-Phase-1 checkout — fetch main.
Step 3: Satisfy the Triple-Name Discovery Contract
Rename in the three places that must stay identical — the filename stem, the sidecar // name:, and the meta.name literal:
grep -n "name:" workflows/<name>.mjs
That triple equality (filename ↔ sidecar name ↔ meta.name) is the Workflow({ name }) and /<name> discovery contract.
Expected: All three read the same kebab-case name.
On failure: A Workflow not found by name error at runtime means the triple is out of sync — re-check all three.
Step 4: Write the Pure-Literal meta and Sidecar
export const meta must be a pure literal — no variables, function calls, spreads, or template interpolation. Required fields: name and description. phases (one entry per phase the workflow uses, whether opened by a global phase() call or a stage's per-call phase: option) is optional but recommended. Mirror name, description, and the phases titles in the top-of-file sidecar comment block — the sidecar is the catalog source of truth (the analogue of YAML frontmatter on the other content types), readable by grep without a JS parser.
Expected: meta is a literal object; the sidecar agrees with it; phases ⊇ every title passed to phase() or a stage phase:.
On failure: A meta must be a pure literal error means a value references a variable or call — inline it.
Step 5: Build the Body
The body runs inside an async wrapper — use top-level await and a top-level return directly. Compose with the injected globals (no imports):
pipeline(items, ...stages) — the default: each item flows through every stage with no barrier between stages (wall-clock = slowest single chain).parallel(thunks) — a barrier: use only when a stage needs every prior result at once (dedup, an early-exit count, a synthesis step).agent(prompt, { schema, label, phase, agentType }) — spawn one subagent; with { schema } it returns a validated object.phase(title), log(message), and the args / budget globals. Default args so the workflow runs with no input.
Pass a JSON Schema as { schema } to force structured output (no free-text parsing). See guides/creating-workflows.md for the full primitive reference.
Expected: A body that defaults its inputs, fans out with the right primitive, and returns a value.
On failure: If you reach for parallel() only to flatten or map between stages, that barrier is not justified — do the transform inside a pipeline() stage.
Step 6: Honor the Capability Contract (#285)
agent({ agentType }) names the spawn type per call — the workflow's native expression of the persona-vs-spawn decoupling. The intent rule applies:
- A stage that mutates artifacts (uses Write/Edit/Bash to change files, or runs under
isolation: 'worktree') must target an implementing agent type.
- A read-only analysis stage targets an advisory type (e.g.,
Explore).
Set agentType explicitly on every stage so the contract is visible, not implied.
Expected: Every agent() call names an agentType whose capability matches what the stage does.
On failure: A mutating stage targeting an advisory type cannot write — switch it to an implementing type such as general-purpose.
Step 7: Apply the Adversarial-Verification Fail-Safes
If your workflow verifies candidate findings (the classify → refute → synthesize spine), bake in the three lessons the review-changes seed encodes:
- Gate on affirmative confirmations, not refutations.
agent() returns null when a subagent is skipped or dies, so filter(Boolean) before counting and require a majority of confirmations to survive (confirmedVotes >= Math.floor(n / 2) + 1). Surviving when "few enough refuted" inverts the fail-safe — a dead refuter would let an unverified finding through.
- Give verifiers the evidence the proposer had. If the classifier read a diff, tell the refuters to read it too — otherwise change-specific findings get default-refuted and unfairly killed.
- Default to refuted/unconfirmed unless a verifier can independently reproduce the finding.
Expected: Survival gates on a confirmation quorum, verifiers share the proposer's evidence, and null results are filtered.
On failure: If real findings vanish, check that verifiers aren't starved of context (lesson 2); if junk survives, check the gate counts confirmations, not refutations (lesson 1).
Step 8: Validate the Script
Workflow scripts use a top-level return, which the runtime accepts (it wraps the body in an async function) but raw ESM rejects — so plain node --check reports Illegal return statement on a valid workflow. Use the wrap-then-check recipe:
{ echo '(async()=>{'; \
sed 's/^[[:space:]]*export const meta/const meta/' workflows/<name>.mjs; \
echo '})()'; } | node --check -
The authoritative check is running it: Workflow({ name: '<name>' }).
Expected: The wrap-check passes with no syntax error.
On failure: Do not "fix" a top-level return to pass raw node --check — that would cripple the script. Use the wrap-check; debug any other syntax error normally.
Step 9: Install and Run
The Workflow tool resolves Workflow({ name }) from .claude/workflows/<name>.mjs. In Phase 1, install by hand:
cp workflows/<name>.mjs .claude/workflows/<name>.mjs
Then invoke Workflow({ name: '<name>' }) or the /<name> slash command. .claude/workflows/ is user-writable and the save-flow writes there, so a curated install must namespace (almanac-<name>.mjs) to avoid shadowing a user's own workflow.
Expected: The workflow runs end-to-end and returns its value.
On failure: If /<name> is not found, confirm the file is in .claude/workflows/ and the triple-name contract holds (Step 3).
Step 10: Register (Library Contributions)
Phase-2-pending. A workflows/_registry.yml, CI validation of the sidecar, and a CLI install adapter are deferred behind the #288 promotion gate (~8–10 workflows + a real install request). Until they land, a library workflow needs no registry entry — the sidecar frontmatter is its catalog metadata and discovery is by filename. When the registry exists, this step becomes "add an entry derived from the sidecar."
Workflows are excluded from i18n. Unlike skills/agents/teams/guides, a workflow is executable code, not prose — do not scaffold translations for it.
If contributing a reviewed seed to agent-almanac, place it in workflows/, cross-reference it from guides/creating-workflows.md, and carry the vendor-API caveat in any prose you add.
Expected: A library workflow lives in workflows/ with an accurate sidecar; no registry or translation steps are attempted in Phase 1.
On failure: If a tool expects workflows/_registry.yml, you are ahead of the promotion gate — stop and confirm Phase 2 has shipped.
Validation
Common Pitfalls
- Writing a workflow when a team fits. If the next step depends on what the last step found, the coordination is adaptive — use a team. Workflows are for procedures whose shape is fixed in advance.
- Counting refutations instead of confirmations. Gating survival on "few enough refuted" lets a
null/dead refuter pass an unverified finding through. Gate on a majority of affirmative confirmations.
- Starving verifiers of context. Refuters that see less than the proposer (e.g., the file but not the diff) default-refute legitimate change-specific findings and kill them.
- Computing
meta. export const meta must be a literal — no spreads, calls, or interpolation. A computed meta fails at load.
- "Fixing" the top-level
return. It is valid Workflow dialect; rewriting it to satisfy raw node --check breaks the script. Use the wrap-check.
- Forbidden non-determinism.
Date.now() / Math.random() / argless new Date() break workflow resume. Pass timestamps via args; vary randomness by agent index or label.
- Building Phase-2 machinery early. Do not add a
workflows/_registry.yml or scaffold translations for a workflow — registries/CLI/validation are gated, and workflows are i18n-excluded.
Related Skills
create-skill — author a SKILL.md (the how for one agent); the meta-pattern sibling.create-agent — define an agent persona; workflows spawn agents by agentType.create-team — compose a declarative, model-driven roster (the adaptive counterpart to a workflow).commit-changes — commit the new workflow file.review-codebase / review-pull-request — the single-reviewer skills the review-changes workflow coordinates many of.
