Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/tomevault-io/skills-registry --skill pipeline명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
| Use when this capability is needed.
> Use when this capability is needed.
Review architecture and API design for the vfs-s3 project. Use when the user mentions @architect, asks to review an issue's design, discuss module boundaries, API shape, or architectural decisions for vfs-s3. Also trigger when the user wants to create an ADR (Architecture Decision Record) or evaluate a technical approach for the project. Intended for dispatch from Codex automation or Claude routines; GitHub trigger phrase: @vfs-s3-bot please prepare design doc Use when this capability is needed.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | pipeline |
| description | | Use when this capability is needed. |
Trigger when:
Do NOT trigger for:
[Input] → [Stage 1] → [Handoff] → [Stage 2] → [Handoff] → [Stage 3] → [Output]
│ │ │
└── Checkpoint ──────────┴── Checkpoint ──────────┘
Map out all stages:
Pipeline: [Task Name]
Stages:
1. [Stage Name] - [What happens] - [Output artifact]
2. [Stage Name] - [What happens] - [Output artifact]
3. [Stage Name] - [What happens] - [Output artifact]
Dependencies:
- Stage 2 requires: [Stage 1 output]
- Stage 3 requires: [Stage 2 output]
Each stage needs exit criteria:
Stage 1 checkpoint:
- [ ] [Exit criterion 1]
- [ ] [Exit criterion 2]
- [ ] Artifact produced: [what]
Stage 2 checkpoint:
- [ ] [Exit criterion 1]
- [ ] Receives: [Stage 1 artifact]
- [ ] Artifact produced: [what]
For each stage:
═══════════════════════════════════════
STAGE [N]: [Name]
═══════════════════════════════════════
Input: [What this stage receives]
[Execute stage work]
Checkpoint:
- [✓/✗] Criterion 1
- [✓/✗] Criterion 2
Output: [What this stage produces]
[If all criteria pass] → Proceed to Stage N+1
[If any criterion fails] → Stop and resolve
Between stages, explicit handoff:
──────────────────────────────────────
HANDOFF: Stage [N] → Stage [N+1]
──────────────────────────────────────
Passing:
- [Artifact 1]: [description]
- [Artifact 2]: [description]
Context for next stage:
- [Key decision made]
- [Constraint to maintain]
- [Risk to watch for]
──────────────────────────────────────
When all stages complete:
═══════════════════════════════════════
PIPELINE COMPLETE: [Task Name]
═══════════════════════════════════════
Stages completed: [N/N]
Final output:
[Description of what was produced]
Artifacts:
- [Final deliverable 1]
- [Final deliverable 2]
Summary:
- Stage 1: [Brief outcome]
- Stage 2: [Brief outcome]
- Stage 3: [Brief outcome]
Bug Fix
1. Reproduce → Consistent repro steps
2. Diagnose → Root cause identified
3. Fix → Code change
4. Verify → Bug no longer occurs
Refactoring
1. Assess → Impact analysis
2. Prepare → Tests in place
3. Refactor → Code changed
4. Validate → Tests still pass
Documentation
1. Outline → Structure defined
2. Draft → Content written
3. Review → Feedback incorporated
4. Publish → Live documentation
STAGE FAILURE: [Stage Name]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Failed criterion: [What didn't pass]
Reason: [Why it failed]
Options:
A) Retry after fixing [specific issue]
B) Roll back to [previous stage]
C) Abort - partial output available
Recommendation: [A/B/C] because [reason]
User: "Add password reset functionality"
Pipeline: Password Reset Feature
Stages:
1. Design → Security spec, API contract
2. Implement → Endpoint, email service, token handling
3. Test → Unit tests, integration tests
4. Review → Security review, code review
═══════════════════════════════════════
STAGE 1: Design
═══════════════════════════════════════
[Produces security spec covering token expiry,
rate limiting, email verification]
Checkpoint:
- [✓] Security requirements defined
- [✓] API contract specified
- [✓] Edge cases documented
Output: Design spec
──────────────────────────────────────
HANDOFF: Design → Implement
──────────────────────────────────────
Passing: Design spec
Context: Tokens expire in 1 hour, max 3 attempts/hour
═══════════════════════════════════════
STAGE 2: Implement
═══════════════════════════════════════
[Implements based on spec]
...continues through all stages...
User: "Users are seeing 500 errors on checkout"
Pipeline: Checkout 500 Error Fix
Stages:
1. Reproduce → Consistent repro steps
2. Diagnose → Root cause found
3. Fix → Code change
4. Verify → Error resolved
═══════════════════════════════════════
STAGE 1: Reproduce
═══════════════════════════════════════
Attempting to reproduce...
Checkpoint:
- [✓] Error reproduced locally
- [✓] Consistent reproduction steps documented
Output: Repro steps - 500 occurs when cart has
item with null price field
──────────────────────────────────────
HANDOFF: Reproduce → Diagnose
──────────────────────────────────────
Passing: Repro steps
Context: Only occurs with specific data condition
...continues...
What DOESN'T work:
- Skipping reproduce stage: "I think I know what's wrong" → fixes wrong thing
- Soft checkpoints: "Probably good enough" → issues cascade
- No handoff context: Next stage misses critical constraints
- Parallelizing dependent stages: Race conditions, inconsistent results
Sequential work needs sequential discipline. The temptation is to skip ahead - "I'll just start coding and figure out the design as I go." This leads to rework, bugs, and frustration.
Pipelines force the discipline: complete each stage before moving on. It feels slower but is faster in total time because you don't backtrack.
The checkpoint isn't bureaucracy - it's the moment where you catch problems before they become expensive.
Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.