orch-pipeline
Manages the workflow pipeline for research, planning, testing, review, and code commits.
Installation
Paste this into Claude Code, Cursor, or any agent that can run commands.
SKILL.mdShow the author's original SKILL.md
--- name: orch-pipeline description: Shared orchestration engine for the orch-* skill family. Defines the gated Research-Plan-TDD-Review-Commit pipeline, the size classifier, the agent map, and the two human gates that the orch-* operation skills delegate to. Not usually invoked directly. metadata: origin: ECC --- # Orchestrator Pipeline (shared engine) The `orch-*` skills are thin wrappers. They do not re-implement any work — they classify the request, choose which phases of *this* pipeline run, and delegate each phase to an existing ECC agent or command. This file is that pipeline. > Invoke an operation skill (`orch-add-feature`, `orch-fix-defect`, …) rather > than this engine directly. This file is the reference they point at. ## When to Use - Loaded indirectly whenever an `orch-*` operation skill runs. - Read directly only when adding a new operation to the family or tuning the shared phases, gates, or agent map. ## The operation family | Skill | Operation | Trigger | First move | |-------|-----------|---------|------------| | `orch-add-feature` | feature | capability does not exist yet | research + plan a new slice | | `orch-change-feature` | tweak | works, but desired behavior differs | amend existing behavior *and its tests* | | `orch-fix-defect` | fix | broken; behavior is wrong | reproduce as a failing test, then fix | | `orch-refine-code` | refactor | behavior stays, structure improves | restructure while keeping tests green | | `orch-build-mvp` | mvp | bootstrap from a design/spec doc | ingest doc → vertical slices | > These wrappers **compose** existing ECC commands rather than replace them: > `/feature-dev`, `/plan`, `/code-review`, `/build-fix`, `/refactor-clean`, and > `/gan-build`, plus the `tdd-workflow` skill. The orch-* family adds the shared > size classifier and the two gates > on top of them, so one umbrella covers all five operations consistently. ## Step 0 — Classify size (right-sizing) Ceremony scales to blast radius. Score the request on three signals, take the **highest** tier any signal reaches, and state the result in one line so the user can override: | Tier | Files touched | New dependency / contract | Design ambiguity | Phases that run | |------|---------------|---------------------------|------------------|-----------------| | trivial | 1, a few lines | none | none — the change is obvious | 4 → 5 → 6 | | small | 1 file / 1 function | none | clear once you read the code | (1 light) → 4 → 5 → 6 | | standard | 2–5 files | maybe a new internal module | one real choice to make | 1 → 2 → 4 → 5 → 6 | | large | many / cross-cutting | new external dep, public API, or a spec doc | multiple open questions | 1 → 2 → (3) → 4 → 5 → 6 | Phase 0 (Intake) always runs and is omitted from the mask column above. The tie-breaker: anything touching a security trigger (below) or a public API / contract is **at least** standard, regardless of file count. ## The phases Each phase delegates — it does not do the work inline. - **0. Intake** — restate the request. For `orch-build-mvp`, read the spec/design doc and extract scope, locked decisions, and a feature list. - **1. Research & Reuse** — per `rules/common/development-workflow.md`: `gh search repos` / `gh search code`, then Context7 / vendor docs, then package registries, then Exa. Prefer adopting a proven implementation over net-new code. - **2. Plan** — delegate to the `planner` agent (or `architect` / `code-architect` for structural decisions). Output a `task_list` ordered as thin vertical slices. → **GATE 1.** - **3. Scaffold** — `orch-build-mvp` only: stand up the first end-to-end slice. - **4. Implement (TDD)** — drive each task through the `tdd-guide` agent (or the `tdd-workflow` skill): red → green → refactor. Honor the operation's first-move rule. - **5. Review** — `code-reviewer` agent / `/code-review`. Add `security-reviewer` whenever the diff touches a security trigger (below). - **6. Commit** — conventional commits (`feat:` / `fix:` / `refactor:` / …), one per logical chunk. → **GATE 2.** ## The two gates This family is **gated, not autonomous**: 1. **GATE 1 — after Plan.** Present the `task_list`; do not write implementation code until the user approves. 2. **GATE 2 — before Commit.** Present the diff summary and proposed messages; do not commit until the user confirms. Everything between the gates flows without stopping. ## Agent / command map | Phase | Primary | Fallback / escalation | |-------|---------|----------------------| | Intake / understand | `code-explorer` | trace existing paths before a tweak, fix, or refactor | | Plan | `planner` | `architect`, `code-architect` for structural calls | | Implement | `tdd-guide` (or `tdd-workflow` skill) | `build-error-resolver` / `/build-fix` on build breaks | | Review | `code-reviewer` / `/code-review` | language reviewer (`python-reviewer`, `typescript-reviewer`, …) | | Security | `security-reviewer` | — | | MVP inner loop | `/gan-build "<brief>" --skip-planner` | drives `gan-generator` → `gan-evaluator`; tune `--max-iterations` / `--pass-threshold` | Match the language reviewer to the repo (see the repo's own `CLAUDE.md`). ## Security-review trigger Pull in `security-reviewer` when the diff touches any of: authentication or authorization, user-input handling, database queries, file-system paths, external API calls, cryptography, or secrets / credentials. (Per `rules/common/security.md`.) ## Handoff artifacts The pipeline carries no hidden state — the planning docs *are* the handoff: - `task_list` (from Plan) drives the Implement loop. - Larger work may also emit PRD / architecture / system_design under the repo's `docs/` per `rules/common/development-workflow.md`. - Review findings (CRITICAL / HIGH) must be resolved before Gate 2. ## Verification - size tier was stated and matched the work - Gate 1 (plan) and Gate 2 (commit) were both honored - `security-reviewer` ran iff a security trigger was touched - commits are conventional and scoped to one logical change - new / changed behavior has tests; coverage ≥ 80% per `rules/common/testing.md`
Mirrored from the author's public source. Install counts from the open skills registry.