Find Workflow Duplication

/find-workflow-duplication

You are the orchestrator for a product-topology SUSPECT skill. Detect when the same workflow step knowledge is repeated across layers instead of owned by a registry.

How success is judged

• report.md and findings.json agree on finding count and bucket counts, and the closeout pastes the real detect.py and report.py output lines (wrote ...) as artifact truth.
• Findings are promoted only when at least two active executable owner layers can drift; docs, tests, route definitions, and unloaded legacy files are context unless paired with active executable repeats.
• Every finding names the proposed canonical owner: workflow registry for labels/tab IDs, or route helper/router for route literals. A repeated string without an owner decision is evidence, not a finding.
• The run is read-only: it writes only under reports/workflow-duplication/<scan-id>/.

Scope

• Workflow is host-authored — read from .engineering/docs/product-workflows.md. With no descriptor the scan finds nothing (the toolkit assumes no product flow).
• Scans the host's declared ## Text-file globs; templates declared under ## UI template globs split loaded JS from legacy/unloaded.
• Output: reports/workflow-duplication/<scan-id>/.
• No code edits.
• Python: python3 (stdlib-only scripts).

Pipeline

SCAN_ID="scan-$(date -u +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)"
REPORT_DIR="reports/workflow-duplication/$SCAN_ID"
mkdir -p "$REPORT_DIR"
python3 .claude/skills/find-workflow-duplication/scripts/detect.py \
  --project-root "$(pwd)" \
  --min-active-owners 2 \
  --output "$REPORT_DIR/detections.jsonl"
python3 .claude/skills/find-workflow-duplication/scripts/report.py \
  --detections "$REPORT_DIR/detections.jsonl" \
  --output-md "$REPORT_DIR/report.md" \
  --output-json "$REPORT_DIR/findings.json" \
  --scan-id "$SCAN_ID" \
  --target "product workflow" \
  --project-root "$(pwd)"

The skill default is --min-active-owners 2; pass it explicitly. The script's compatibility default is 0 and is too permissive for this skill because it can surface docs/legacy repeats without active executable drift. Leave --min-owners at its script default of 3 unless the user asks for a broader diagnostic pass.

After the commands finish, paste the detect.py and report.py stdout lines into the report or closeout. Do not claim findings from memory; read findings.json for counts and report.md for the rows the user will see.

Findings

• duplicated_workflow_label: step label repeated across owner layers.
• duplicated_workflow_tab_id: tab key repeated across owner layers.
• duplicated_route_literal: route literal repeated across owner layers.
• duplicated_workflow_knowledge: fallback for any future descriptor-driven value kind; treat it as evidence until the owner is explicit.

Every finding includes surface classification:

• active_executable: current templates, loaded JS, views, or services that can change runtime behavior.
• legacy_unloaded: JS or templates in the workflow file family that are not loaded by current site-config templates.
• route_definition: URLconf definitions. These can stay literal when route names and consumers are registry-owned.
• docs / tests: reference material and regression coverage.

Triage Rules

• Lexical repeats are evidence, not findings. A label, tab id, route prefix, or endpoint suffix appearing in docs/tests does not matter by itself.
• Start from active executable repeats. Treat legacy/unloaded files, docs/tests, and route definitions as context unless they are paired with two or more active executable owners that can drift.
• Use a two-pass migration lens for route-literal cleanup: first migrate consumers loaded by current templates, then sweep the remaining workflow-family static files. Dormant prototype JS should be deleted when it has no unique knowledge; otherwise quarantine it with an explicit reason instead of keeping silent compatibility debt.
• Promote to a finding only when multiple executable layers can change behavior independently: navigation, page tabs, status providers, route/URL generation, endpoint construction, feature visibility, or boot payload shape.
• Every finding must name the proposed canonical owner — the workflow registry for duplicated labels/tab IDs, or the route helper/router for duplicated route literals.
• Do not fold a distinct sub-workflow's rules into the primary workflow's findings unless the user explicitly scopes that work in.

Decision fork: when a duplicate value appears in active code plus docs or tests, promote it only if the active code spans at least two owner layers. When it appears in one active owner plus any amount of docs/tests/route definitions/legacy unloaded files, report it as context or ignore it; do not hand it to /fix-workflow.

Next Skills

• Use /extract-workflow-registry to propose the explicit owner.
• Use /fix-workflow only after tests pin the current labels, tabs, redirects, and page rendering.

When things go sideways

Replay case

For future repairs, replay with a temporary project that declares one workflow step in .engineering/docs/product-workflows.md, includes the step label in one template and one service file listed under ## Text-file globs, then runs the two documented commands. Expected evidence: detect.py writes at least one JSONL record only when active owners meet the explicit threshold, and report.py writes both report.md and findings.json.