Skip to main content
EVOKORE// BROWSE
>

./browse/prompts

10 NODES
πŸ“textβ€’6 months ago

Improvement Cycle Review Wizard

Run a live improvement-cycle workflow that links review artifacts, approvals, tool requests, and operator checkpoints.

productivity
⭐1
# Improvement Cycle Review Wizard Imported from curated first-party documentation sources. ## What this covers Use this workflow when an operator needs a guided improvement cycle with live status, explicit approvals, and linked artifacts. ## Use this when - Operational review sessions with live progress - Approval-heavy improvement cycles - Coordinating review artifacts with execution steps ## Expected outcomes - Live workflow execution remains visible to operators - Artifacts, approvals, and tool requests stay connected - Improvement loops become easier to audit and rerun ## Source synthesis - AGENT33/docs/phase25-26-live-review-walkthrough.md (https://github.com/mattmre/AGENT33/blob/main/docs/phase25-26-live-review-walkthrough.md) - AGENT33/docs/operator-improvement-cycle-and-jupyter.md (https://github.com/mattmre/AGENT33/blob/main/docs/operator-improvement-cycle-and-jupyter.md) ## Dedupe notes Merges AGENT33 live review walkthrough details with the shorter operator-focused improvement-cycle guide. ## Source excerpts ### AGENT33/docs/phase25-26-live-review-walkthrough.md This guide documents the operator flow introduced by the Phase 25 live workflow transport and the Phase 26/27 improvement-cycle review wizard stack. ## Scope - Live workflow execution with run-scoped graph refresh - WebSocket-first status streaming with authenticated SSE fallback - Improvement-cycle preset creation - Explanation artifact generation for `plan_review` and `diff_review` - Linked review creation, risk assessment, L1/L2 signoff, and final approval - Pending tool-approval triage inside the same workflow domain > Note > This walkthrough reflects the review stack built on `codex/session58-phase26-wizard` and validated in `codex/session60-phase22-docs-validation`. If the related PRs are still open, `main` may not yet expose every surface described here. ## Operator Flow ```mermaid sequenceDiagram participant UI as "Frontend Control Plane" participant WF as "Workflow APIs" participant VIZ as "Visualization APIs" participant EXP as "Explanation APIs" participant REV as "Review APIs" participant HITL as "Tool Approval APIs" UI->>WF: "POST /v1/workflows/{name}/execute (single mode, caller run_id)" UI->>VIZ: "GET /v1/visualizations/workflows/{workflow_id}/graph?run_id=..." UI->>WF: "WS /v1/workflows/{run_id}/ws" alt "WebSocket unav ... ### AGENT33/docs/operator-improvement-cycle-and-jupyter.md This guide covers the merged operator surfaces for: - the Phase 26 improvement-cycle review wizard - the Phase 27 canonical workflow presets - the Phase 38 Docker-backed Jupyter kernel workflow Use it when you want the shortest current path from UI entry point to a real workflow run. ## 1. Improvement-Cycle Wizard The wizard is mounted inside the frontend control plane under the `Workflows` domain. ### Entry path 1. Open the frontend at `http://localhost:3000` 2. Authenticate with a bearer token or API key 3. Open `Advanced Settings` 4. Select the `Workflows` domain 5. Use the `Improvement Cycle Wizard` panel at the top of the page ### What the wizard does The wizard stitches together the backend surfaces that previously had to be called manually: - plan review / diff review generation - review creation and risk assessment - L1 and L2 review submission - tool approval request review and decision capture Reference implementation: - frontend: `frontend/src/features/improvement-cycle/ImprovementCycleWizard.tsx` - tests: `frontend/src/features/improvement-cycle/ImprovementCycleWizard.test.tsx` For the detailed review flow, keep using: - [`phase25-26-live-review-walkthrough.md`](phase25-26-live-review-walkthrough.md) ## 2. Canonical Workflow Presets The `Workflows` doma ...
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
docs
πŸ“textβ€’6 months ago

Release Command Center Workflow

Coordinate release freezes, candidate promotion, validation, publication, and rollback handling through a defined state model.

devops
⭐1
# Release Command Center Workflow Imported from curated first-party documentation sources. ## What this covers Use this workflow to move a release from planning to publication with explicit validation checkpoints and rollback branches. ## Use this when - Managing release freezes and candidate promotion - Tracking validation state before publication - Documenting rollback-friendly release operations ## Expected outcomes - Release state changes are visible and repeatable - Rollback paths are treated as first-class outcomes - Validation discipline is preserved between phases ## Source synthesis - AGENT33/docs/functionality-and-workflows.md (https://github.com/mattmre/AGENT33/blob/main/docs/functionality-and-workflows.md) - AGENT33/docs/use-cases.md (https://github.com/mattmre/AGENT33/blob/main/docs/use-cases.md) ## Dedupe notes Merges AGENT33 release lifecycle details with release-oriented use-case guidance. ## Source excerpts ### AGENT33/docs/functionality-and-workflows.md ### 4.2 Release Lifecycle States: - `planned -> frozen -> rc -> validating -> released` - Failure/rollback branches: `failed`, `rolled_back` Main APIs: - `/v1/releases/{id}/freeze` - `/v1/releases/{id}/rc` - `/v1/releases/{id}/validate` - `/v1/releases/{id}/publish` - `/v1/releases/{id}/rollback` ### AGENT33/docs/use-cases.md ## 2. Release Command Center Goal: - Move releases through frozen -> RC -> validate -> publish with checklist controls. Use these modules: - `api/routes/releases.py` - `release/service.py` - `release/checklist.py` - `release/sync.py` - `release/rollback.py` Typical flow: 1. Create release (`POST /v1/releases`). 2. Freeze, cut RC, validate. 3. Update/evaluate checklist items. 4. Publish when checks pass. 5. Run sync dry-runs or real syncs. 6. Initiate rollback if needed. Best fit: - Teams with repeatable release compliance requirements.
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
docs
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

team-communication-protocols

Structured messaging protocols for agent team communication

coding
⭐1
# Team Communication Protocols Protocols for effective communication between agent teammates, including message type selection, plan approval workflows, shutdown procedures, and common anti-patterns to avoid. ## When to Use This Skill - Establishing communication norms for a new team - Choosing between message types (message, broadcast, shutdown_request) - Handling plan approval workflows - Managing graceful team shutdown - Discovering teammate identities and capabilities ## Message Type Selection ### `message` (Direct Message) β€” Default Choice Send to a single specific teammate: ```json { "type": "message", "recipient": "implementer-1", "content": "Your API endpoint is ready. You can now build the frontend form.", "summary": "API endpoint ready for frontend" } ``` **Use for**: Task updates, coordination, questions, integration notifications. ### `broadcast` β€” Use Sparingly Send to ALL teammates simultaneously: ```json { "type": "broadcast", "content": "Critical: shared types file has been updated. Pull latest before continuing.", "summary": "Shared types updated" } ``` **Use ONLY for**: Critical blockers affecting everyone, major changes to shared resources. **Why sparingly?**: Each broadcast sends N separate messages (one per teammate), consuming API resources proportional to team size. ### `shutdown_request` β€” Graceful Termination Request a teammate to shut down: ```json { "type": "shutdown_request", "recipient": "reviewer-1", "content": "Review complete, shutting down team." } ``` The teammate responds with `shutdown_response` (approve or reject with reason). ## Communication Anti-Patterns | Anti-Pattern | Problem | Better Approach | | --------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | | Broadcasting routine updates | Wastes resources, noise | Direct message to affected teammate | | Sending JSON status messages | Not designed for structured data | Use TaskUpdate to update task status | | Not communicating at integration points | Teammates build against stale interfaces | Message when your interface is ready | | Micromanaging via messages | Overwhelms teammates, slows work | Check in at milestones, not every step | | Using UUIDs instead of names | Hard to read, error-prone | Always use teammate names | | Ignoring idle teammates | Wasted capacity | Assign new work or shut down | ## Plan Approval Workflow When a teammate is spawned with `plan_mode_required`: 1. Teammate creates a plan using read-only exploration tools 2. Teammate calls `ExitPlanMode` which sends a `plan_approval_request` to the lead 3. Lead reviews the plan 4. Lead responds with `plan_approval_response`: **Approve**: ```json { "type": "plan_approval_response", "request_id": "abc-123", "recipient": "implementer-1", "approve": true } ``` **Reject with feedback**: ```json { "type": "plan_approval_response", "request_id": "abc-123", "recipient": "implementer-1", "approve": false, "content": "Please add error handling for the API calls" } ``` ## Shutdown Protocol ### Graceful Shutdown Sequence 1. **Lead sends shutdown_request** to each teammate 2. **Teammate receives request** as a JSON message with `type: "shutdown_request"` 3. **Teammate responds** with `shutdown_response`: - `approve: true` β€” Teammate saves state and exits - `approve: false` + reason β€” Teammate continues working 4. **Lead handles rejections** β€” Wait for teammate to finish, then retry 5. **After all teammates shut down** β€” Call `Teammate` cleanup ### Handling Rejections If a teammate rejects shutdown: - Check their reason (usually "still working on task") - Wait for their current task to complete - Retry shutdown request - If urgent, user can force shutdown ## Teammate Discovery Find team members by reading the config file: **Location**: `~/.claude/teams/{team-name}/config.json` **Structure**: ```json { "members": [ { "name": "security-reviewer", "agentId": "uuid-here", "agentType": "team-reviewer" }, { "name": "perf-reviewer", "agentId": "uuid-here", "agentType": "team-reviewer" } ] } ``` **Always use `name`** for messaging and task assignment. Never use `agentId` directly.
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
πŸ€– Auto-discovered
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

team-composition-patterns

Design optimal agent team compositions with sizing heuristics,

coding
⭐1
# Team Composition Patterns Best practices for composing multi-agent teams, selecting team sizes, choosing agent types, and configuring display modes for Claude Code's Agent Teams feature. ## When to Use This Skill - Deciding how many teammates to spawn for a task - Choosing between preset team configurations - Selecting the right agent type (subagent_type) for each role - Configuring teammate display modes (tmux, iTerm2, in-process) - Building custom team compositions for non-standard workflows ## Team Sizing Heuristics | Complexity | Team Size | When to Use | | ------------ | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Simple | 1-2 | Single-dimension review, isolated bug, small feature | | Moderate | 2-3 | Multi-file changes, 2-3 concerns, medium features | | Complex | 3-4 | Cross-cutting concerns, large features, deep debugging | | Very Complex | 4-5 | Full-stack features, comprehensive reviews, systemic issues | **Rule of thumb**: Start with the smallest team that covers all required dimensions. Adding teammates increases coordination overhead. ## Preset Team Compositions ### Review Team - **Size**: 3 reviewers - **Agents**: 3x `team-reviewer` - **Default dimensions**: security, performance, architecture - **Use when**: Code changes need multi-dimensional quality assessment ### Debug Team - **Size**: 3 investigators - **Agents**: 3x `team-debugger` - **Default hypotheses**: 3 competing hypotheses - **Use when**: Bug has multiple plausible root causes ### Feature Team - **Size**: 3 (1 lead + 2 implementers) - **Agents**: 1x `team-lead` + 2x `team-implementer` - **Use when**: Feature can be decomposed into parallel work streams ### Fullstack Team - **Size**: 4 (1 lead + 3 implementers) - **Agents**: 1x `team-lead` + 1x frontend `team-implementer` + 1x backend `team-implementer` + 1x test `team-implementer` - **Use when**: Feature spans frontend, backend, and test layers ### Research Team - **Size**: 3 researchers - **Agents**: 3x `general-purpose` - **Default areas**: Each assigned a different research question, module, or topic - **Capabilities**: Codebase search (Grep, Glob, Read), web search (WebSearch, WebFetch) - **Use when**: Need to understand a codebase, research libraries, compare approaches, or gather information from code and web sources in parallel ### Security Team - **Size**: 4 reviewers - **Agents**: 4x `team-reviewer` - **Default dimensions**: OWASP/vulnerabilities, auth/access control, dependencies/supply chain, secrets/configuration - **Use when**: Comprehensive security audit covering multiple attack surfaces ### Migration Team - **Size**: 4 (1 lead + 2 implementers + 1 reviewer) - **Agents**: 1x `team-lead` + 2x `team-implementer` + 1x `team-reviewer` - **Use when**: Large codebase migration (framework upgrade, language port, API version bump) requiring parallel work with correctness verification ## Agent Type Selection When spawning teammates with the Task tool, choose `subagent_type` based on what tools the teammate needs: | Agent Type | Tools Available | Use For | | ------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | `general-purpose` | All tools (Read, Write, Edit, Bash, etc.) | Implementation, debugging, any task requiring file changes | | `Explore` | Read-only tools (Read, Grep, Glob) | Research, code exploration, analysis | | `Plan` | Read-only tools | Architecture planning, task decomposition | | `agent-teams:team-reviewer` | All tools | Code review with structured findings | | `agent-teams:team-debugger` | All tools | Hypothesis-driven investigation | | `agent-teams:team-implementer` | All tools | Building features within file ownership boundaries | | `agent-teams:team-lead` | All tools | Team orchestration and coordination | **Key distinction**: Read-only agents (Explore, Plan) cannot modify files. Never assign implementation tasks to read-only agents. ## Display Mode Configuration Configure in `~/.claude/settings.json`: ```json { "teammateMode": "tmux" } ``` | Mode | Behavior | Best For | | -------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------- | | `"tmux"` | Each teammate in a tmux pane | Development workflows, monitoring multiple agents | | `"iterm2"` | Each teammate in an iTerm2 tab | macOS users who prefer iTerm2 | | `"in-process"` | All teammates in same process | Simple tasks, CI/CD environments | ## Custom Team Guidelines When building custom teams: 1. **Every team needs a coordinator** β€” Either designate a `team-lead` or have the user coordinate directly 2. **Match roles to agent types** β€” Use specialized agents (reviewer, debugger, implementer) when available 3. **Avoid duplicate roles** β€” Two agents doing the same thing wastes resources 4. **Define boundaries upfront** β€” Each teammate needs clear ownership of files or responsibilities 5. **Keep it small** β€” 2-4 teammates is the sweet spot; 5+ requires significant coordination overhead
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
πŸ€– Auto-discovered
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

saga-orchestration

Implement saga patterns for distributed transactions and

coding
⭐1
# Saga Orchestration Patterns for managing distributed transactions and long-running business processes. ## When to Use This Skill - Coordinating multi-service transactions - Implementing compensating transactions - Managing long-running business workflows - Handling failures in distributed systems - Building order fulfillment processes - Implementing approval workflows ## Core Concepts ### 1. Saga Types ``` Choreography Orchestration β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β” β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β” β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β” β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β” β”‚Svc A│─►│Svc B│─►│Svc Cβ”‚ β”‚ Orchestratorβ”‚ β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”¬β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ β”‚ β”‚ β”‚ β”‚ β–Ό β–Ό β–Ό β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”Όβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β” Event Event Event β–Ό β–Ό β–Ό β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β” β”‚Svc1β”‚β”‚Svc2β”‚β”‚Svc3β”‚ β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜β””β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ ``` ### 2. Saga Execution States | State | Description | | ---------------- | ------------------------------ | | **Started** | Saga initiated | | **Pending** | Waiting for step completion | | **Compensating** | Rolling back due to failure | | **Completed** | All steps succeeded | | **Failed** | Saga failed after compensation | ## Templates ### Template 1: Saga Orchestrator Base ```python from abc import ABC, abstractmethod from dataclasses import dataclass, field from enum import Enum from typing import List, Dict, Any, Optional from datetime import datetime import uuid class SagaState(Enum): STARTED = "started" PENDING = "pending" COMPENSATING = "compensating" COMPLETED = "completed" FAILED = "failed" @dataclass class SagaStep: name: str action: str compensation: str status: str = "pending" result: Optional[Dict] = None error: Optional[str] = None executed_at: Optional[datetime] = None compensated_at: Optional[datetime] = None @dataclass class Saga: saga_id: str saga_type: str state: SagaState data: Dict[str, Any] steps: List[SagaStep] current_step: int = 0 created_at: datetime = field(default_factory=datetime.utcnow) updated_at: datetime = field(default_factory=datetime.utcnow) class SagaOrchestrator(ABC): """Base class for saga orchestrators.""" def __init__(self, saga_store, event_publisher): self.saga_store = saga_store self.event_publisher = event_publisher @abstractmethod def define_steps(self, data: Dict) -> List[SagaStep]: """Define the saga steps.""" pass @property @abstractmethod def saga_type(self) -> str: """Unique saga type identifier.""" pass async def start(self, data: Dict) -> Saga: """Start a new saga.""" saga = Saga( saga_id=str(uuid.uuid4()), saga_type=self.saga_type, state=SagaState.STARTED, data=data, steps=self.define_steps(data) ) await self.saga_store.save(saga) await self._execute_next_step(saga) return saga async def handle_step_completed(self, saga_id: str, step_name: str, result: Dict): """Handle successful step completion.""" saga = await self.saga_store.get(saga_id) # Update step for step in saga.steps: if step.name == step_name: step.status = "completed" step.result = result step.executed_at = datetime.utcnow() break saga.current_step += 1 saga.updated_at = datetime.utcnow() # Check if saga is complete if saga.current_step >= len(saga.steps): saga.state = SagaState.COMPLETED await self.saga_store.save(saga) await self._on_saga_completed(saga) else: saga.state = SagaState.PENDING await self.saga_store.save(saga) await self._execute_next_step(saga) async def handle_step_failed(self, saga_id: str, step_name: str, error: str): """Handle step failure - start compensation.""" saga = await self.saga_store.get(saga_id) # Mark step as failed for step in saga.steps: if step.name == step_name: step.status = "failed" step.error = error break saga.state = SagaState.COMPENSATING saga.updated_at = datetime.utcnow() await self.saga_store.save(saga) # Start compensation from current step backwards await self._compensate(saga) async def _execute_next_step(self, saga: Saga): """Execute the next step in the saga.""" if saga.current_step >= len(saga.steps): return step = saga.steps[saga.current_step] step.status = "executing" await self.saga_store.save(saga) # Publish command to execute step await self.event_publisher.publish( step.action, { "saga_id": saga.saga_id, "step_name": step.name, **saga.data } ) async def _compensate(self, saga: Saga): """Execute compensation for completed steps.""" # Compensate in reverse order for i in range(saga.current_step - 1, -1, -1): step = saga.steps[i] if step.status == "completed": step.status = "compensating" await self.saga_store.save(saga) await self.event_publisher.publish( step.compensation, { "saga_id": saga.saga_id, "step_name": step.name, "original_result": step.result, **saga.data } ) async def handle_compensation_completed(self, saga_id: str, step_name: str): """Handle compensation completion.""" saga = await self.saga_store.get(saga_id) for step in saga.steps: if step.name == step_name: step.status = "compensated" step.compensated_at = datetime.utcnow() break # Check if all compensations complete all_compensated = all( s.status in ("compensated", "pending", "failed") for s in saga.steps ) if all_compensated: saga.state = SagaState.FAILED await self._on_saga_failed(saga) await self.saga_store.save(saga) async def _on_saga_completed(self, saga: Saga): """Called when saga completes successfully.""" await self.event_publisher.publish( f"{self.saga_type}Completed", {"saga_id": saga.saga_id, **saga.data} ) async def _on_saga_failed(self, saga: Saga): """Called when saga fails after compensation.""" await self.event_publisher.publish( f"{self.saga_type}Failed", {"saga_id": saga.saga_id, "error": "Saga failed", **saga.data} ) ``` ### Template 2: Order Fulfillment Saga ```python class OrderFulfillmentSaga(SagaOrchestrator): """Orchestrates order fulfillment across services.""" @property def saga_type(self) -> str: return "OrderFulfillment" def define_steps(self, data: Dict) -> List[SagaStep]: return [ SagaStep( name="reserve_inventory", action="InventoryService.ReserveItems", compensation="InventoryService.ReleaseReservation" ), SagaStep( name="process_payment", action="PaymentService.ProcessPayment", compensation="PaymentService.RefundPayment" ), SagaStep( name="create_shipment", action="ShippingService.CreateShipment", compensation="ShippingService.CancelShipment" ), SagaStep( name="send_confirmation", action="NotificationService.SendOrderConfirmation", compensation="NotificationService.SendCancellationNotice" ) ] # Usage async def create_order(order_data: Dict): saga = OrderFulfillmentSaga(saga_store, event_publisher) return await saga.start({ "order_id": order_data["order_id"], "customer_id": order_data["customer_id"], "items": order_data["items"], "payment_method": order_data["payment_method"], "shipping_address": order_data["shipping_address"] }) # Event handlers in each service class InventoryService: async def handle_reserve_items(self, command: Dict): try: # Reserve inventory reservation = await self.reserve( command["items"], command["order_id"] ) # Report success await self.event_publisher.publish( "SagaStepCompleted", { "saga_id": command["saga_id"], "step_name": "reserve_inventory", "result": {"reservation_id": reservation.id} } ) except InsufficientInventoryError as e: await self.event_publisher.publish( "SagaStepFailed", { "saga_id": command["saga_id"], "step_name": "reserve_inventory", "error": str(e) } ) async def handle_release_reservation(self, command: Dict): # Compensating action await self.release_reservation( command["original_result"]["reservation_id"] ) await self.event_publisher.publish( "SagaCompensationCompleted", { "saga_id": command["saga_id"], "step_name": "reserve_inventory" } ) ``` ### Template 3: Choreography-Based Saga ```python from dataclasses import dataclass from typing import Dict, Any import asyncio @dataclass class SagaContext: """Passed through choreographed saga events.""" saga_id: str step: int data: Dict[str, Any] completed_steps: list class OrderChoreographySaga: """Choreography-based saga using events.""" def __init__(self, event_bus): self.event_bus = event_bus self._register_handlers() def _register_handlers(self): self.event_bus.subscribe("OrderCreated", self._on_order_created) self.event_bus.subscribe("InventoryReserved", self._on_inventory_reserved) self.event_bus.subscribe("PaymentProcessed", self._on_payment_processed) self.event_bus.subscribe("ShipmentCreated", self._on_shipment_created) # Compensation handlers self.event_bus.subscribe("PaymentFailed", self._on_payment_failed) self.event_bus.subscribe("ShipmentFailed", self._on_shipment_failed) async def _on_order_created(self, event: Dict): """Step 1: Order created, reserve inventory.""" await self.event_bus.publish("ReserveInventory", { "saga_id": event["order_id"], "order_id": event["order_id"], "items": event["items"] }) async def _on_inventory_reserved(self, event: Dict): """Step 2: Inventory reserved, process payment.""" await self.event_bus.publish("ProcessPayment", { "saga_id": event["saga_id"], "order_id": event["order_id"], "amount": event["total_amount"], "reservation_id": event["reservation_id"] }) async def _on_payment_processed(self, event: Dict): """Step 3: Payment done, create shipment.""" await self.event_bus.publish("CreateShipment", { "saga_id": event["saga_id"], "order_id": event["order_id"], "payment_id": event["payment_id"] }) async def _on_shipment_created(self, event: Dict): """Step 4: Complete - send confirmation.""" await self.event_bus.publish("OrderFulfilled", { "saga_id": event["saga_id"], "order_id": event["order_id"], "tracking_number": event["tracking_number"] }) # Compensation handlers async def _on_payment_failed(self, event: Dict): """Payment failed - release inventory.""" await self.event_bus.publish("ReleaseInventory", { "saga_id": event["saga_id"], "reservation_id": event["reservation_id"] }) await self.event_bus.publish("OrderFailed", { "order_id": event["order_id"], "reason": "Payment failed" }) async def _on_shipment_failed(self, event: Dict): """Shipment failed - refund payment and release inventory.""" await self.event_bus.publish("RefundPayment", { "saga_id": event["saga_id"], "payment_id": event["payment_id"] }) await self.event_bus.publish("ReleaseInventory", { "saga_id": event["saga_id"], "reservation_id": event["reservation_id"] }) ``` ### Template 4: Saga with Timeouts ```python class TimeoutSagaOrchestrator(SagaOrchestrator): """Saga orchestrator with step timeouts.""" def __init__(self, saga_store, event_publisher, scheduler): super().__init__(saga_store, event_publisher) self.scheduler = scheduler async def _execute_next_step(self, saga: Saga): if saga.current_step >= len(saga.steps): return step = saga.steps[saga.current_step] step.status = "executing" step.timeout_at = datetime.utcnow() + timedelta(minutes=5) await self.saga_store.save(saga) # Schedule timeout check await self.scheduler.schedule( f"saga_timeout_{saga.saga_id}_{step.name}", self._check_timeout, {"saga_id": saga.saga_id, "step_name": step.name}, run_at=step.timeout_at ) await self.event_publisher.publish( step.action, {"saga_id": saga.saga_id, "step_name": step.name, **saga.data} ) async def _check_timeout(self, data: Dict): """Check if step has timed out.""" saga = await self.saga_store.get(data["saga_id"]) step = next(s for s in saga.steps if s.name == data["step_name"]) if step.status == "executing": # Step timed out - fail it await self.handle_step_failed( data["saga_id"], data["step_name"], "Step timed out" ) ``` ## Best Practices ### Do's - **Make steps idempotent** - Safe to retry - **Design compensations carefully** - They must work - **Use correlation IDs** - For tracing across services - **Implement timeouts** - Don't wait forever - **Log everything** - For debugging failures ### Don'ts - **Don't assume instant completion** - Sagas take time - **Don't skip compensation testing** - Most critical part - **Don't couple services** - Use async messaging - **Don't ignore partial failures** - Handle gracefully ## Resources - [Saga Pattern](https://microservices.io/patterns/data/saga.html) - [Designing Data-Intensive Applications](https://dataintensive.net/)
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
πŸ€– Auto-discovered
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

parallel-feature-development

Coordinate parallel feature development with file ownership

coding
⭐1
# Parallel Feature Development Strategies for decomposing features into parallel work streams, establishing file ownership boundaries, avoiding conflicts, and integrating results from multiple implementer agents. ## When to Use This Skill - Decomposing a feature for parallel implementation - Establishing file ownership boundaries between agents - Designing interface contracts between parallel work streams - Choosing integration strategies (vertical slice vs horizontal layer) - Managing branch and merge workflows for parallel development ## File Ownership Strategies ### By Directory Assign each implementer ownership of specific directories: ``` implementer-1: src/components/auth/ implementer-2: src/api/auth/ implementer-3: tests/auth/ ``` **Best for**: Well-organized codebases with clear directory boundaries. ### By Module Assign ownership of logical modules (which may span directories): ``` implementer-1: Authentication module (login, register, logout) implementer-2: Authorization module (roles, permissions, guards) ``` **Best for**: Feature-oriented architectures, domain-driven design. ### By Layer Assign ownership of architectural layers: ``` implementer-1: UI layer (components, styles, layouts) implementer-2: Business logic layer (services, validators) implementer-3: Data layer (models, repositories, migrations) ``` **Best for**: Traditional MVC/layered architectures. ## Conflict Avoidance Rules ### The Cardinal Rule **One owner per file.** No file should be assigned to multiple implementers. ### When Files Must Be Shared If a file genuinely needs changes from multiple implementers: 1. **Designate a single owner** β€” One implementer owns the file 2. **Other implementers request changes** β€” Message the owner with specific change requests 3. **Owner applies changes sequentially** β€” Prevents merge conflicts 4. **Alternative: Extract interfaces** β€” Create a separate interface file that the non-owner can import without modifying ### Interface Contracts When implementers need to coordinate at boundaries: ```typescript // src/types/auth-contract.ts (owned by team-lead, read-only for implementers) export interface AuthResponse { token: string; user: UserProfile; expiresAt: number; } export interface AuthService { login(email: string, password: string): Promise<AuthResponse>; register(data: RegisterData): Promise<AuthResponse>; } ``` Both implementers import from the contract file but neither modifies it. ## Integration Patterns ### Vertical Slice Each implementer builds a complete feature slice (UI + API + tests): ``` implementer-1: Login feature (login form + login API + login tests) implementer-2: Register feature (register form + register API + register tests) ``` **Pros**: Each slice is independently testable, minimal integration needed. **Cons**: May duplicate shared utilities, harder with tightly coupled features. ### Horizontal Layer Each implementer builds one layer across all features: ``` implementer-1: All UI components (login form, register form, profile page) implementer-2: All API endpoints (login, register, profile) implementer-3: All tests (unit, integration, e2e) ``` **Pros**: Consistent patterns within each layer, natural specialization. **Cons**: More integration points, layer 3 depends on layers 1 and 2. ### Hybrid Mix vertical and horizontal based on coupling: ``` implementer-1: Login feature (vertical slice β€” UI + API + tests) implementer-2: Shared auth infrastructure (horizontal β€” middleware, JWT utils, types) ``` **Best for**: Most real-world features with some shared infrastructure. ## Branch Management ### Single Branch Strategy All implementers work on the same feature branch: - Simple setup, no merge overhead - Requires strict file ownership to avoid conflicts - Best for: small teams (2-3), well-defined boundaries ### Multi-Branch Strategy Each implementer works on a sub-branch: ``` feature/auth β”œβ”€β”€ feature/auth-login (implementer-1) β”œβ”€β”€ feature/auth-register (implementer-2) └── feature/auth-tests (implementer-3) ``` - More isolation, explicit merge points - Higher overhead, merge conflicts still possible in shared files - Best for: larger teams (4+), complex features
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
πŸ€– Auto-discovered
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

multi-reviewer-patterns

Coordinate parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions

coding
⭐1
# Multi-Reviewer Patterns Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports. ## When to Use This Skill - Organizing a multi-dimensional code review - Deciding which review dimensions to assign - Deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers - Calibrating severity ratings consistently - Producing a consolidated review report ## Review Dimension Allocation ### Available Dimensions | Dimension | Focus | When to Include | | ----------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | **Security** | Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation | Always for code handling user input or auth | | **Performance** | Query efficiency, memory, caching | When changing data access or hot paths | | **Architecture** | SOLID, coupling, patterns | For structural changes or new modules | | **Testing** | Coverage, quality, edge cases | When adding new functionality | | **Accessibility** | WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav | For UI/frontend changes | ### Recommended Combinations | Scenario | Dimensions | | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | | API endpoint changes | Security, Performance, Architecture | | Frontend component | Architecture, Testing, Accessibility | | Database migration | Performance, Architecture | | Authentication changes | Security, Testing | | Full feature review | Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing | ## Finding Deduplication When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location: ### Merge Rules 1. **Same file:line, same issue** β€” Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers 2. **Same file:line, different issues** β€” Keep as separate findings 3. **Same issue, different locations** β€” Keep separate but cross-reference 4. **Conflicting severity** β€” Use the higher severity rating 5. **Conflicting recommendations** β€” Include both with reviewer attribution ### Deduplication Process ``` For each finding in all reviewer reports: 1. Check if another finding references the same file:line 2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue 3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description 4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located" 5. Use highest severity among merged findings ``` ## Severity Calibration ### Severity Criteria | Severity | Impact | Likelihood | Examples | | ------------ | --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | | **Critical** | Data loss, security breach, complete failure | Certain or very likely | SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption | | **High** | Significant functionality impact, degradation | Likely | Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow | | **Medium** | Partial impact, workaround exists | Possible | N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error | | **Low** | Minimal impact, cosmetic | Unlikely | Style issue, minor optimization, naming | ### Calibration Rules - Security vulnerabilities exploitable by external users: always Critical or High - Performance issues in hot paths: at least Medium - Missing tests for critical paths: at least Medium - Accessibility violations for core functionality: at least Medium - Code style issues with no functional impact: Low ## Consolidated Report Template ```markdown ## Code Review Report **Target**: {files/PR/directory} **Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3} **Date**: {date} **Files Reviewed**: {count} ### Critical Findings ({count}) #### [CR-001] {Title} **Location**: `{file}:{line}` **Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.} **Description**: {what was found} **Impact**: {what could happen} **Fix**: {recommended remediation} ### High Findings ({count}) ... ### Medium Findings ({count}) ... ### Low Findings ({count}) ... ### Summary | Dimension | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Total | | ------------ | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----- | ------ | | Security | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 6 | | Performance | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | | Architecture | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | | **Total** | **1** | **3** | **9** | **5** | **18** | ### Recommendation {Overall assessment and prioritized action items} ```
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ1
πŸ€– Auto-discovered
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

track-management

Use this skill when creating, managing, or working with Conductor

coding
⭐1
# Track Management Guide for creating, managing, and completing Conductor tracks - the logical work units that organize features, bugs, and refactors through specification, planning, and implementation phases. ## When to Use This Skill - Creating new feature, bug, or refactor tracks - Writing or reviewing spec.md files - Creating or updating plan.md files - Managing track lifecycle from creation to completion - Understanding track status markers and conventions - Working with the tracks.md registry - Interpreting or updating track metadata ## Track Concept A track is a logical work unit that encapsulates a complete piece of work. Each track has: - A unique identifier - A specification defining requirements - A phased plan breaking work into tasks - Metadata tracking status and progress Tracks provide semantic organization for work, enabling: - Clear scope boundaries - Progress tracking - Git-aware operations (revert by track) - Team coordination ## Track Types ### feature New functionality or capabilities. Use for: - New user-facing features - New API endpoints - New integrations - Significant enhancements ### bug Defect fixes. Use for: - Incorrect behavior - Error conditions - Performance regressions - Security vulnerabilities ### chore Maintenance and housekeeping. Use for: - Dependency updates - Configuration changes - Documentation updates - Cleanup tasks ### refactor Code improvement without behavior change. Use for: - Code restructuring - Pattern adoption - Technical debt reduction - Performance optimization (same behavior, better performance) ## Track ID Format Track IDs follow the pattern: `{shortname}_{YYYYMMDD}` - **shortname**: 2-4 word kebab-case description (e.g., `user-auth`, `api-rate-limit`) - **YYYYMMDD**: Creation date in ISO format Examples: - `user-auth_20250115` - `fix-login-error_20250115` - `upgrade-deps_20250115` - `refactor-api-client_20250115` ## Track Lifecycle ### 1. Creation (newTrack) **Define Requirements** 1. Gather requirements through interactive Q&A 2. Identify acceptance criteria 3. Determine scope boundaries 4. Identify dependencies **Generate Specification** 1. Create `spec.md` with structured requirements 2. Document functional and non-functional requirements 3. Define acceptance criteria 4. List dependencies and constraints **Generate Plan** 1. Create `plan.md` with phased task breakdown 2. Organize tasks into logical phases 3. Add verification tasks after phases 4. Estimate effort and complexity **Register Track** 1. Add entry to `tracks.md` registry 2. Create track directory structure 3. Generate `metadata.json` 4. Create track `index.md` ### 2. Implementation **Execute Tasks** 1. Select next pending task from plan 2. Mark task as in-progress 3. Implement following workflow (TDD) 4. Mark task complete with commit SHA **Update Status** 1. Update task markers in plan.md 2. Record commit SHAs for traceability 3. Update phase progress 4. Update track status in tracks.md **Verify Progress** 1. Complete verification tasks 2. Wait for checkpoint approval 3. Record checkpoint commits ### 3. Completion **Sync Documentation** 1. Update product.md if features added 2. Update tech-stack.md if dependencies changed 3. Verify all acceptance criteria met **Archive or Delete** 1. Mark track as completed in tracks.md 2. Record completion date 3. Archive or retain track directory ## Specification (spec.md) Structure ```markdown # {Track Title} ## Overview Brief description of what this track accomplishes and why. ## Functional Requirements ### FR-1: {Requirement Name} Description of the functional requirement. - Acceptance: How to verify this requirement is met ### FR-2: {Requirement Name} ... ## Non-Functional Requirements ### NFR-1: {Requirement Name} Description of the non-functional requirement (performance, security, etc.) - Target: Specific measurable target - Verification: How to test ## Acceptance Criteria - [ ] Criterion 1: Specific, testable condition - [ ] Criterion 2: Specific, testable condition - [ ] Criterion 3: Specific, testable condition ## Scope ### In Scope - Explicitly included items - Features to implement - Components to modify ### Out of Scope - Explicitly excluded items - Future considerations - Related but separate work ## Dependencies ### Internal - Other tracks or components this depends on - Required context artifacts ### External - Third-party services or APIs - External dependencies ## Risks and Mitigations | Risk | Impact | Mitigation | | ---------------- | --------------- | ------------------- | | Risk description | High/Medium/Low | Mitigation strategy | ## Open Questions - [ ] Question that needs resolution - [x] Resolved question - Answer ``` ## Plan (plan.md) Structure ```markdown # Implementation Plan: {Track Title} Track ID: `{track-id}` Created: YYYY-MM-DD Status: pending | in-progress | completed ## Overview Brief description of implementation approach. ## Phase 1: {Phase Name} ### Tasks - [ ] **Task 1.1**: Task description - Sub-task or detail - Sub-task or detail - [ ] **Task 1.2**: Task description - [ ] **Task 1.3**: Task description ### Verification - [ ] **Verify 1.1**: Verification step for phase ## Phase 2: {Phase Name} ### Tasks - [ ] **Task 2.1**: Task description - [ ] **Task 2.2**: Task description ### Verification - [ ] **Verify 2.1**: Verification step for phase ## Phase 3: Finalization ### Tasks - [ ] **Task 3.1**: Update documentation - [ ] **Task 3.2**: Final integration test ### Verification - [ ] **Verify 3.1**: All acceptance criteria met ## Checkpoints | Phase | Checkpoint SHA | Date | Status | | ------- | -------------- | ---- | ------- | | Phase 1 | | | pending | | Phase 2 | | | pending | | Phase 3 | | | pending | ``` ## Status Marker Conventions Use consistent markers in plan.md: | Marker | Meaning | Usage | | ------ | ----------- | --------------------------- | | `[ ]` | Pending | Task not started | | `[~]` | In Progress | Currently being worked | | `[x]` | Complete | Task finished (include SHA) | | `[-]` | Skipped | Intentionally not done | | `[!]` | Blocked | Waiting on dependency | Example: ```markdown - [x] **Task 1.1**: Set up database schema `abc1234` - [~] **Task 1.2**: Implement user model - [ ] **Task 1.3**: Add validation logic - [!] **Task 1.4**: Integrate auth service (blocked: waiting for API key) - [-] **Task 1.5**: Legacy migration (skipped: not needed) ``` ## Track Registry (tracks.md) Format ```markdown # Track Registry ## Active Tracks | Track ID | Type | Status | Phase | Started | Assignee | | ------------------------------------------------ | ------- | ----------- | ----- | ---------- | ---------- | | [user-auth_20250115](tracks/user-auth_20250115/) | feature | in-progress | 2/3 | 2025-01-15 | @developer | | [fix-login_20250114](tracks/fix-login_20250114/) | bug | pending | 0/2 | 2025-01-14 | - | ## Completed Tracks | Track ID | Type | Completed | Duration | | ---------------------------------------------- | ----- | ---------- | -------- | | [setup-ci_20250110](tracks/setup-ci_20250110/) | chore | 2025-01-12 | 2 days | ## Archived Tracks | Track ID | Reason | Archived | | ---------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | | [old-feature_20241201](tracks/old-feature_20241201/) | Superseded | 2025-01-05 | ``` ## Metadata (metadata.json) Fields ```json { "id": "user-auth_20250115", "title": "User Authentication System", "type": "feature", "status": "in-progress", "priority": "high", "created": "2025-01-15T10:30:00Z", "updated": "2025-01-15T14:45:00Z", "started": "2025-01-15T11:00:00Z", "completed": null, "assignee": "@developer", "phases": { "total": 3, "current": 2, "completed": 1 }, "tasks": { "total": 12, "completed": 5, "in_progress": 1, "pending": 6 }, "checkpoints": [ { "phase": 1, "sha": "abc1234", "date": "2025-01-15T13:00:00Z" } ], "dependencies": [], "tags": ["auth", "security"] } ``` ## Track Operations ### Creating a Track 1. Run `/conductor:new-track` 2. Answer interactive questions 3. Review generated spec.md 4. Review generated plan.md 5. Confirm track creation ### Starting Implementation 1. Read spec.md and plan.md 2. Verify context artifacts are current 3. Mark first task as `[~]` 4. Begin TDD workflow ### Completing a Phase 1. Ensure all phase tasks are `[x]` 2. Complete verification tasks 3. Wait for checkpoint approval 4. Record checkpoint SHA 5. Proceed to next phase ### Completing a Track 1. Verify all phases complete 2. Verify all acceptance criteria met 3. Update product.md if needed 4. Mark track completed in tracks.md 5. Update metadata.json ### Reverting a Track 1. Run `/conductor:revert` 2. Select track to revert 3. Choose granularity (track/phase/task) 4. Confirm revert operation 5. Update status markers ## Handling Track Dependencies ### Identifying Dependencies During track creation, identify: - **Hard dependencies**: Must complete before this track can start - **Soft dependencies**: Can proceed in parallel but may affect integration - **External dependencies**: Third-party services, APIs, or team decisions ### Documenting Dependencies In spec.md, list dependencies with: - Dependency type (hard/soft/external) - Current status (available/pending/blocked) - Resolution path (what needs to happen) ### Managing Blocked Tracks When a track is blocked: 1. Mark blocked tasks with `[!]` and reason 2. Update tracks.md status 3. Document blocker in metadata.json 4. Consider creating dependency track if needed ## Track Sizing Guidelines ### Right-Sized Tracks Aim for tracks that: - Complete in 1-5 days of work - Have 2-4 phases - Contain 8-20 tasks total - Deliver a coherent, testable unit ### Too Large Signs a track is too large: - More than 5 phases - More than 25 tasks - Multiple unrelated features - Estimated duration > 1 week Solution: Split into multiple tracks with clear boundaries. ### Too Small Signs a track is too small: - Single phase with 1-2 tasks - No meaningful verification needed - Could be a sub-task of another track - Less than a few hours of work Solution: Combine with related work or handle as part of existing track. ## Specification Quality Checklist Before finalizing spec.md, verify: ### Requirements Quality - [ ] Each requirement has clear acceptance criteria - [ ] Requirements are testable - [ ] Requirements are independent (can verify separately) - [ ] No ambiguous language ("should be fast" β†’ "response < 200ms") ### Scope Clarity - [ ] In-scope items are specific - [ ] Out-of-scope items prevent scope creep - [ ] Boundaries are clear to implementer ### Dependencies Identified - [ ] All internal dependencies listed - [ ] External dependencies have owners/contacts - [ ] Dependency status is current ### Risks Addressed - [ ] Major risks identified - [ ] Impact assessment realistic - [ ] Mitigations are actionable ## Plan Quality Checklist Before starting implementation, verify plan.md: ### Task Quality - [ ] Tasks are atomic (one logical action) - [ ] Tasks are independently verifiable - [ ] Task descriptions are clear - [ ] Sub-tasks provide helpful detail ### Phase Organization - [ ] Phases group related tasks - [ ] Each phase delivers something testable - [ ] Verification tasks after each phase - [ ] Phases build on each other logically ### Completeness - [ ] All spec requirements have corresponding tasks - [ ] Documentation tasks included - [ ] Testing tasks included - [ ] Integration tasks included ## Common Track Patterns ### Feature Track Pattern ``` Phase 1: Foundation - Data models - Database migrations - Basic API structure Phase 2: Core Logic - Business logic implementation - Input validation - Error handling Phase 3: Integration - UI integration - API documentation - End-to-end tests ``` ### Bug Fix Track Pattern ``` Phase 1: Reproduction - Write failing test capturing bug - Document reproduction steps Phase 2: Fix - Implement fix - Verify test passes - Check for regressions Phase 3: Verification - Manual verification - Update documentation if needed ``` ### Refactor Track Pattern ``` Phase 1: Preparation - Add characterization tests - Document current behavior Phase 2: Refactoring - Apply changes incrementally - Maintain green tests throughout Phase 3: Cleanup - Remove dead code - Update documentation ``` ## Best Practices 1. **One track, one concern**: Keep tracks focused on a single logical change 2. **Small phases**: Break work into phases of 3-5 tasks maximum 3. **Verification after phases**: Always include verification tasks 4. **Update markers immediately**: Mark task status as you work 5. **Record SHAs**: Always note commit SHAs for completed tasks 6. **Review specs before planning**: Ensure spec is complete before creating plan 7. **Link dependencies**: Explicitly note track dependencies 8. **Archive, don't delete**: Preserve completed tracks for reference 9. **Size appropriately**: Keep tracks between 1-5 days of work 10. **Clear acceptance criteria**: Every requirement must be testable
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
πŸ€– Auto-discovered
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

workflow-orchestration-patterns

Design durable workflows with Temporal for distributed systems.

coding
⭐1
# Workflow Orchestration Patterns Master workflow orchestration architecture with Temporal, covering fundamental design decisions, resilience patterns, and best practices for building reliable distributed systems. ## When to Use Workflow Orchestration ### Ideal Use Cases (Source: docs.temporal.io) - **Multi-step processes** spanning machines/services/databases - **Distributed transactions** requiring all-or-nothing semantics - **Long-running workflows** (hours to years) with automatic state persistence - **Failure recovery** that must resume from last successful step - **Business processes**: bookings, orders, campaigns, approvals - **Entity lifecycle management**: inventory tracking, account management, cart workflows - **Infrastructure automation**: CI/CD pipelines, provisioning, deployments - **Human-in-the-loop** systems requiring timeouts and escalations ### When NOT to Use - Simple CRUD operations (use direct API calls) - Pure data processing pipelines (use Airflow, batch processing) - Stateless request/response (use standard APIs) - Real-time streaming (use Kafka, event processors) ## Critical Design Decision: Workflows vs Activities **The Fundamental Rule** (Source: temporal.io/blog/workflow-engine-principles): - **Workflows** = Orchestration logic and decision-making - **Activities** = External interactions (APIs, databases, network calls) ### Workflows (Orchestration) **Characteristics:** - Contain business logic and coordination - **MUST be deterministic** (same inputs β†’ same outputs) - **Cannot** perform direct external calls - State automatically preserved across failures - Can run for years despite infrastructure failures **Example workflow tasks:** - Decide which steps to execute - Handle compensation logic - Manage timeouts and retries - Coordinate child workflows ### Activities (External Interactions) **Characteristics:** - Handle all external system interactions - Can be non-deterministic (API calls, DB writes) - Include built-in timeouts and retry logic - **Must be idempotent** (calling N times = calling once) - Short-lived (seconds to minutes typically) **Example activity tasks:** - Call payment gateway API - Write to database - Send emails or notifications - Query external services ### Design Decision Framework ``` Does it touch external systems? β†’ Activity Is it orchestration/decision logic? β†’ Workflow ``` ## Core Workflow Patterns ### 1. Saga Pattern with Compensation **Purpose**: Implement distributed transactions with rollback capability **Pattern** (Source: temporal.io/blog/compensating-actions-part-of-a-complete-breakfast-with-sagas): ``` For each step: 1. Register compensation BEFORE executing 2. Execute the step (via activity) 3. On failure, run all compensations in reverse order (LIFO) ``` **Example: Payment Workflow** 1. Reserve inventory (compensation: release inventory) 2. Charge payment (compensation: refund payment) 3. Fulfill order (compensation: cancel fulfillment) **Critical Requirements:** - Compensations must be idempotent - Register compensation BEFORE executing step - Run compensations in reverse order - Handle partial failures gracefully ### 2. Entity Workflows (Actor Model) **Purpose**: Long-lived workflow representing single entity instance **Pattern** (Source: docs.temporal.io/evaluate/use-cases-design-patterns): - One workflow execution = one entity (cart, account, inventory item) - Workflow persists for entity lifetime - Receives signals for state changes - Supports queries for current state **Example Use Cases:** - Shopping cart (add items, checkout, expiration) - Bank account (deposits, withdrawals, balance checks) - Product inventory (stock updates, reservations) **Benefits:** - Encapsulates entity behavior - Guarantees consistency per entity - Natural event sourcing ### 3. Fan-Out/Fan-In (Parallel Execution) **Purpose**: Execute multiple tasks in parallel, aggregate results **Pattern:** - Spawn child workflows or parallel activities - Wait for all to complete - Aggregate results - Handle partial failures **Scaling Rule** (Source: temporal.io/blog/workflow-engine-principles): - Don't scale individual workflows - For 1M tasks: spawn 1K child workflows Γ— 1K tasks each - Keep each workflow bounded ### 4. Async Callback Pattern **Purpose**: Wait for external event or human approval **Pattern:** - Workflow sends request and waits for signal - External system processes asynchronously - Sends signal to resume workflow - Workflow continues with response **Use Cases:** - Human approval workflows - Webhook callbacks - Long-running external processes ## State Management and Determinism ### Automatic State Preservation **How Temporal Works** (Source: docs.temporal.io/workflows): - Complete program state preserved automatically - Event History records every command and event - Seamless recovery from crashes - Applications restore pre-failure state ### Determinism Constraints **Workflows Execute as State Machines**: - Replay behavior must be consistent - Same inputs β†’ identical outputs every time **Prohibited in Workflows** (Source: docs.temporal.io/workflows): - ❌ Threading, locks, synchronization primitives - ❌ Random number generation (`random()`) - ❌ Global state or static variables - ❌ System time (`datetime.now()`) - ❌ Direct file I/O or network calls - ❌ Non-deterministic libraries **Allowed in Workflows**: - βœ… `workflow.now()` (deterministic time) - βœ… `workflow.random()` (deterministic random) - βœ… Pure functions and calculations - βœ… Calling activities (non-deterministic operations) ### Versioning Strategies **Challenge**: Changing workflow code while old executions still running **Solutions**: 1. **Versioning API**: Use `workflow.get_version()` for safe changes 2. **New Workflow Type**: Create new workflow, route new executions to it 3. **Backward Compatibility**: Ensure old events replay correctly ## Resilience and Error Handling ### Retry Policies **Default Behavior**: Temporal retries activities forever **Configure Retry**: - Initial retry interval - Backoff coefficient (exponential backoff) - Maximum interval (cap retry delay) - Maximum attempts (eventually fail) **Non-Retryable Errors**: - Invalid input (validation failures) - Business rule violations - Permanent failures (resource not found) ### Idempotency Requirements **Why Critical** (Source: docs.temporal.io/activities): - Activities may execute multiple times - Network failures trigger retries - Duplicate execution must be safe **Implementation Strategies**: - Idempotency keys (deduplication) - Check-then-act with unique constraints - Upsert operations instead of insert - Track processed request IDs ### Activity Heartbeats **Purpose**: Detect stalled long-running activities **Pattern**: - Activity sends periodic heartbeat - Includes progress information - Timeout if no heartbeat received - Enables progress-based retry ## Best Practices ### Workflow Design 1. **Keep workflows focused** - Single responsibility per workflow 2. **Small workflows** - Use child workflows for scalability 3. **Clear boundaries** - Workflow orchestrates, activities execute 4. **Test locally** - Use time-skipping test environment ### Activity Design 1. **Idempotent operations** - Safe to retry 2. **Short-lived** - Seconds to minutes, not hours 3. **Timeout configuration** - Always set timeouts 4. **Heartbeat for long tasks** - Report progress 5. **Error handling** - Distinguish retryable vs non-retryable ### Common Pitfalls **Workflow Violations**: - Using `datetime.now()` instead of `workflow.now()` - Threading or async operations in workflow code - Calling external APIs directly from workflow - Non-deterministic logic in workflows **Activity Mistakes**: - Non-idempotent operations (can't handle retries) - Missing timeouts (activities run forever) - No error classification (retry validation errors) - Ignoring payload limits (2MB per argument) ### Operational Considerations **Monitoring**: - Workflow execution duration - Activity failure rates - Retry attempts and backoff - Pending workflow counts **Scalability**: - Horizontal scaling with workers - Task queue partitioning - Child workflow decomposition - Activity batching when appropriate ## Additional Resources **Official Documentation**: - Temporal Core Concepts: docs.temporal.io/workflows - Workflow Patterns: docs.temporal.io/evaluate/use-cases-design-patterns - Best Practices: docs.temporal.io/develop/best-practices - Saga Pattern: temporal.io/blog/saga-pattern-made-easy **Key Principles**: 1. Workflows = orchestration, Activities = external calls 2. Determinism is non-negotiable for workflows 3. Idempotency is critical for activities 4. State preservation is automatic 5. Design for failure and recovery
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
πŸ€– Auto-discovered
πŸ€–system promptβ€’7 months ago

task-coordination-strategies

Decompose complex tasks, design dependency graphs, and coordinate

coding
⭐1
# Task Coordination Strategies Strategies for decomposing complex tasks into parallelizable units, designing dependency graphs, writing effective task descriptions, and monitoring workload across agent teams. ## When to Use This Skill - Breaking down a complex task for parallel execution - Designing task dependency relationships (blockedBy/blocks) - Writing task descriptions with clear acceptance criteria - Monitoring and rebalancing workload across teammates - Identifying the critical path in a multi-task workflow ## Task Decomposition Strategies ### By Layer Split work by architectural layer: - Frontend components - Backend API endpoints - Database migrations/models - Test suites **Best for**: Full-stack features, vertical slices ### By Component Split work by functional component: - Authentication module - User profile module - Notification module **Best for**: Microservices, modular architectures ### By Concern Split work by cross-cutting concern: - Security review - Performance review - Architecture review **Best for**: Code reviews, audits ### By File Ownership Split work by file/directory boundaries: - `src/components/` β€” Implementer 1 - `src/api/` β€” Implementer 2 - `src/utils/` β€” Implementer 3 **Best for**: Parallel implementation, conflict avoidance ## Dependency Graph Design ### Principles 1. **Minimize chain depth** β€” Prefer wide, shallow graphs over deep chains 2. **Identify the critical path** β€” The longest chain determines minimum completion time 3. **Use blockedBy sparingly** β€” Only add dependencies that are truly required 4. **Avoid circular dependencies** β€” Task A blocks B blocks A is a deadlock ### Patterns **Independent (Best parallelism)**: ``` Task A ─┐ Task B ─┼─→ Integration Task C β”€β”˜ ``` **Sequential (Necessary dependencies)**: ``` Task A β†’ Task B β†’ Task C ``` **Diamond (Mixed)**: ``` β”Œβ†’ Task B ─┐ Task A ── β”œβ†’ Task D β””β†’ Task C β”€β”˜ ``` ### Using blockedBy/blocks ``` TaskCreate: { subject: "Build API endpoints" } β†’ Task #1 TaskCreate: { subject: "Build frontend components" } β†’ Task #2 TaskCreate: { subject: "Integration testing" } β†’ Task #3 TaskUpdate: { taskId: "3", addBlockedBy: ["1", "2"] } β†’ #3 waits for #1 and #2 ``` ## Task Description Best Practices Every task should include: 1. **Objective** β€” What needs to be accomplished (1-2 sentences) 2. **Owned Files** β€” Explicit list of files/directories this teammate may modify 3. **Requirements** β€” Specific deliverables or behaviors expected 4. **Interface Contracts** β€” How this work connects to other teammates' work 5. **Acceptance Criteria** β€” How to verify the task is done correctly 6. **Scope Boundaries** β€” What is explicitly out of scope ### Template ``` ## Objective Build the user authentication API endpoints. ## Owned Files - src/api/auth.ts - src/api/middleware/auth-middleware.ts - src/types/auth.ts (shared β€” read only, do not modify) ## Requirements - POST /api/login β€” accepts email/password, returns JWT - POST /api/register β€” creates new user, returns JWT - GET /api/me β€” returns current user profile (requires auth) ## Interface Contract - Import User type from src/types/auth.ts (owned by implementer-1) - Export AuthResponse type for frontend consumption ## Acceptance Criteria - All endpoints return proper HTTP status codes - JWT tokens expire after 24 hours - Passwords are hashed with bcrypt ## Out of Scope - OAuth/social login - Password reset flow - Rate limiting ``` ## Workload Monitoring ### Indicators of Imbalance | Signal | Meaning | Action | | -------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------------- | | Teammate idle, others busy | Uneven distribution | Reassign pending tasks | | Teammate stuck on one task | Possible blocker | Check in, offer help | | All tasks blocked | Dependency issue | Resolve critical path first | | One teammate has 3x others | Overloaded | Split tasks or reassign | ### Rebalancing Steps 1. Call `TaskList` to assess current state 2. Identify idle or overloaded teammates 3. Use `TaskUpdate` to reassign tasks 4. Use `SendMessage` to notify affected teammates 5. Monitor for improved throughput
πŸ‘0
πŸ‘οΈ0
πŸ€– Auto-discovered