propose-workflow

A planning guide for designing a team of AI agents that work together on a task. It shows the workflow as a reviewable blueprint and waits for approval before creating and running it.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to design workflows such as splitting a repository audit among agents, sending work through stages, or comparing several proposed solutions before choosing one.
Why use it?
It helps you check whether the chosen work pattern fits the task before agents start doing work. This avoids running an unsuitable or unwanted process.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/tarekkharsa/agentstack/propose-workflow
Any agent
npx skills add Tarekkharsa/agentstack --skill propose-workflow
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Tarekkharsa/agentstack

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 75 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 4,499 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00075 $0.04499
Opus 5 $0.00037 $0.02250
Sonnet 5 $0.00015 $0.00900
Haiku 4.5 $0.00007 $0.00450

Measured yesterday against content hash 05960342eade, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

propose-workflow scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

crates/cli/catalog/skills/propose-workflow/SKILL.md · 349 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 349 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Propose a reviewable workflow

Use when the user wants to design or build a workflow and review it before it runs — "let's design a workflow for X", "build me a workflow but let me see it first", "what shape would you use for X". You emit a blueprint (the shape: pattern, phases, per-node role/model/effort/instruction, symbolic fan-out, edges), the panel draws it as a graph, and the user approves / rejects / edits. Only on approve do you author and run it.

The judgment worth reviewing is which algorithm you chose — fan-out map→reduce for "audit this repo" vs a judge panel for "design an API". Emit the shape; let the human check it.

1 — Propose, or just run?

Mode is the user's intent, not a setting — infer it:

  • "Just run a workflow" / "go" / "do X across the files" → skip this gate. Author and run it the normal way — the declare → lock → trust → agentstack workflow run pipeline in §4. Same pipeline, gate auto-skips.
  • "Design / build / let me review / show me the shape first" → propose a blueprint (below), then stop and wait. Do not author, do not run.

When unsure which the user meant, propose — a review gate is cheap to approve and expensive to skip.

2 — Emit the blueprint, then stop

Pick the best-fitting pattern for the task and name it. One node per role/step; give each a model/effort/instruction; edges carry a kind. Emit it in a fenced block whose language tag is exactly agentstack-blueprint — that tag is how the panel intercepts and renders it.

```agentstack-blueprint
{
  "workflow": "repo-audit",
  "pattern": "map-reduce",
  "goal": "Find and rank bugs across the changed files",
  "nodes": [
    { "id": "map", "phase": "Find", "role": "reviewer",
      "model": "gpt-5.5", "effort": "low",
      "instruction": "Scan ONE changed file for correctness bugs",
      "fanout": "1 per changed file" },
    { "id": "reduce", "phase": "Rank", "role": "synthesizer",
      "model": "opus", "effort": "high",
      "instruction": "Dedupe and rank all findings by severity",
      "fanout": null }
  ],
  "edges": [ { "from": "map", "to": "reduce", "kind": "fan-in" } ]
}
```

Read the full file on GitHub · 349 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. yesterday First seen · 349 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 05960342eade

Subscribe to this mod's changes

propose-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository Tarekkharsa/agentstack (3 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 4,499 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.