| name | writing-flows |
| description | Writes single-scenario Flow documents under flows/<topic>/ — use case context, one Mermaid diagram (sequence or flowchart), step-by-step branches, and source file references — so how a service behaves end-to-end can be grasped at a glance. Use when user asks for a sequence diagram, user flow, use case doc, or mentions 시퀀스 다이어그램, 유저 플로우, 플로우 그려줘, 동작 흐름, 플로우 작성. Also trigger on intent like 어떻게 동작하는지 한눈에 보고 싶다, 동작 순서 정리해줘 — but not on simple code questions about a single function. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Glob, Grep, Bash, AskUserQuestion |
| context | fork |
| agent | general-purpose |
Writing Flows
Document how one scenario behaves at runtime as a Flow file under flows/. A Flow makes the order of operations and the branching visible at a glance — the thing specs, tasks, and ADRs can't show.
Hard Rules
- Template-driven. Every Flow follows templates/flow-template.md exactly — four sections, no freestyle.
- One Flow = one scenario. A request spanning multiple scenarios becomes multiple Flow files.
- Code is the source of truth. When code exists, read it before drawing. Never draw from assumption what can be verified by exploration.
- Never auto-modify existing Flows. Propose the diff, wait for confirmation.
- No derived index files. Never create
flows/README.md or flows/INDEX.md — the directory listing is the index.
Directory Rules
- Flows live in
flows/<topic>/NN-name.md at the project root. Topic = coherent feature/domain (auth, checkout), the same axis as ADR-0001 — never phase numbers.
- Match the topic against existing
flows/*/ directories before creating a new one.
NN is a 2-digit index within the topic, starting 01. Filenames are lowercase-with-hyphens.
Phase 1 — Search
Glob flows/**/*.md and check whether a Flow for this scenario already exists.
- Exact scenario match → ask via
AskUserQuestion: update, create new, or cancel.
- Existing Flow whose
## Source files no longer exist (verify with Glob) → report as outdated; propose an update, never apply silently.
- Locate the scenario in code: entry point (route/handler/command), the calls it makes, and where behavior branches. Follow the chain far enough to know every actor and every branch — guessing here produces a wrong diagram.
- No relevant code (design-stage scenario)? Fall back to specs (
Glob specs/**/*.md) or conversation context, and say so in the report.
Phase 2 — Write
Read templates/flow-template.md and fill it strictly:
- Context — 2-3 sentences: the scenario, its trigger, the actors involved.
- Diagram — exactly one Mermaid diagram.
sequenceDiagram when the story is interaction between components/services; flowchart TD when it is user-facing branching between screens/states. Never both, never other types.
- Steps & Branches — numbered happy path; attach branches and edge cases to the step where they diverge (
— 실패 시 → ...).
- Source — the files the Flow was derived from, file paths only (no line numbers — they go stale). For design-stage Flows, list the spec or write
(design — no code yet).
Diagram and Steps must agree with each other and with the code. On update, preserve sections the user didn't ask to change.
Phase 3 — Report
End with a short report: Action (Created/Updated), File (relative path), Scenario (H1), Basis (code files explored, or spec/conversation), and any outdated Flows found in Phase 1. One actionable next step (e.g. a neighboring scenario worth documenting).
Anti-patterns
WRONG: drawing the diagram from the user's description while the code says otherwise.
RIGHT: explore the code first; if it contradicts the user's description, surface the difference and ask which one the Flow should capture.
WRONG: one giant Flow covering signup, login, and password reset.
RIGHT: three Flow files in flows/auth/, each one scenario.
Boundaries
This skill only writes Flow files. Requirements belong to writing-specs, work breakdown to writing-tasks. It never modifies source code.
