mirror of
https://github.com/windmill-labs/windmill.git
synced 2026-09-09 16:05:42 +00:00
hugocasaandClaude Opus 4.8
5bdc4f83ce
* feat(cli): improve agent prompts/skills and workspace fork workflow
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix(cli): refuse fork --from-branch rename of a base branch
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* refactor(cli): auto-detect fork branch workflow, drop rt.d.ts refresh and legacy-name warning
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(skills): reconcile raw-app generate-metadata stance (agent offers+runs)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(skills): agent runs all CLI commands, gated on intent not on user typing them
Extends #9467's safe-vs-destructive model: the agent runs consequential commands (sync push, generate-metadata) itself too, gated on explicit user intent rather than handed to the user to type. The explicit-intent rule is the safeguard; an approval prompt is treated as a possible backstop, not assumed (auto-approve/headless runs have none).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* Revert "docs(skills): agent runs all CLI commands, gated on intent not on user typing them"
Reverts 9225e1759b. That commit over-reached: #9467 already established the safe-vs-destructive split, and the targeted item-6 fix already removed the passive "tell the user they can run <safe next step>" phrasing. The blanket "agent runs everything" principle pushed deploys to be more eager and carried a wrong "permission layer prompts for approval" claim (untrue in auto-approve/headless mode). Keep deploys conservative.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* feat(cli): default fork workspace name/id to the current branch when renaming it
When 'wmill workspace fork' converts the current working branch into the fork branch, default the fork's name and id to that branch (sanitized to a slug, since branch names can contain '/'). Interactive: the prompt is pre-filled (enter to accept); non-interactive (--yes): used automatically. Adds a unit test for the slug derivation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix(cli): address fork review — guard fork-branch rename, cap+validate fork id
Two P2s from review:
- --from-branch refused when the current branch is already a fork branch (would detach the existing fork by renaming its branch).
- fork id slug capped to 42 chars (backend max 50 incl. wm-fork- prefix); auto-derived id is slugged; full id validated client-side before existsWorkspace/datatable cloning so an invalid id fails fast instead of leaving cloned Postgres databases behind.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
80 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
80 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
# Windmill Flow CLI Guide
|
|
|
|
## Creating a Flow
|
|
|
|
**You — the AI agent — scaffold the flow yourself by running `wmill flow new <path>` with the right flags. Do NOT hand-create the folder + `flow.yaml`, and do NOT tell the user to "run `wmill flow new` and follow the prompts".**
|
|
|
|
`wmill flow new` creates the folder with the correct suffix (`__flow` or `.flow` depending on the workspace's `nonDottedPaths` setting), writes a minimal `flow.yaml` shell, and prints Claude-specific next-step hints. Scaffolding by hand skips all of that and often picks the wrong suffix.
|
|
|
|
### Step 1 — Gather path + summary by asking the user
|
|
|
|
You need two things:
|
|
|
|
1. **path** — the windmill path, e.g. `f/folder/my_flow` or `u/username/my_flow`.
|
|
2. **summary** — a short description of the flow.
|
|
|
|
If the user's request didn't supply both, ask for both in a single round-trip. Use whichever interactive question facility your runtime provides — a structured multi-choice tool if available, otherwise plain chat — and provide one or two example values for each (with an "Other" / free-form fallback). Do not guess paths or summaries.
|
|
|
|
### Step 2 — Run the command yourself
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
wmill flow new f/folder/my_flow --summary "Short description"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Add `--description "..."` when the user provided a longer explanation worth preserving separately from the summary.
|
|
|
|
### Step 3 — Fill in `flow.yaml`
|
|
|
|
Open the generated `flow.yaml` (under the folder the command just created) and replace the empty `value.modules` + `schema` with the real flow definition.
|
|
|
|
For rawscript modules, use `!inline path/to/script.ts` for the content key. Inline script files should NOT include `.inline_script.` in their names (e.g. use `a.ts`, not `a.inline_script.ts`).
|
|
|
|
Once the flow has real content, **offer** to open the visual preview as a one-sentence next step (e.g. "Want me to open the visual preview?"). Don't auto-open — opening the dev page has side effects (browser window, possibly a `launch.json` entry) and the user should consent.
|
|
|
|
### Anti-patterns to avoid
|
|
|
|
- ❌ Hand-creating the `__flow` folder + `flow.yaml` instead of running `wmill flow new`. You'll miss the suffix-setting resolution, the default shape, and the Claude hints.
|
|
- ❌ Telling the user to "run `wmill flow new <path>`" — you can and should run it yourself.
|
|
- ❌ Inventing a path/summary instead of asking the user.
|
|
|
|
## CLI Commands — running, previewing, deploying
|
|
|
|
After writing, act on the user's intent instead of just listing commands. Run the safe, non-deploying command yourself when it fits (`wmill flow preview` — see "After writing — offer to run, don't wait passively" below); only *name* the commands that deploy or rewrite files (`wmill sync push`, `wmill generate-metadata`) so the user can approve them. The options:
|
|
|
|
- `wmill flow preview <flow_path>` — **default when iterating on a local flow.** Runs the local `flow.yaml` against local inline scripts without deploying. Add `--remote` to use deployed workspace scripts for PathScript steps instead of local files. Add `--step <step_id>` to run only one module in isolation (see "Single-step vs whole-flow preview" below).
|
|
- `wmill flow run <path>` — runs the flow **already deployed** in the workspace. Use only when the user explicitly wants to test the deployed version, not local edits.
|
|
- `wmill generate-metadata` — regenerate stale `.lock` and `.script.yaml` files. By default it scans **scripts, flows, and apps** across the workspace; pass `--skip-flows --skip-apps` (or run from a subdirectory) to limit the scope when you only care about the flow you edited.
|
|
- `wmill sync push` — deploy local changes to the workspace. Only suggest/run this when the user explicitly asks to deploy/publish/push — not when they say "run", "try", or "test".
|
|
|
|
### Preview vs run — choose by intent, not habit
|
|
|
|
If the user says "run the flow", "try it", "test it", "does it work" while there are **local edits to a `flow.yaml`**, use `flow preview`. Do NOT push the flow to then `flow run` it — pushing is a deploy, and deploying just to test overwrites the workspace version with untested changes.
|
|
|
|
Only use `flow run` when:
|
|
- The user explicitly says "run the deployed version" / "run what's on the server".
|
|
- There is no local `flow.yaml` being edited (you're just invoking an existing flow).
|
|
|
|
Only use `sync push` when:
|
|
- The user explicitly asks to deploy, publish, push, or ship.
|
|
- The preview has already validated the change and the user wants it in the workspace.
|
|
|
|
### Single-step vs whole-flow preview
|
|
|
|
Use `flow preview <flow_path> --step <step_id>` when the user is iterating on one module and the flow's upstream steps aren't part of what they're trying to validate. It runs only that step's runnable (rawscript: the inline script; script: the PathScript, locally if available; flow: the subflow by path) and is much faster than running the whole flow when previous steps are slow or expensive. The step id is resolved by walking nested branchone/branchall/forloopflow/whileloopflow modules and includes the special `preprocessor` and `failure` modules.
|
|
|
|
Use `flow preview <flow_path>` (no `--step`) when steps depend on each other's outputs, when the user is validating the overall control flow, or when `--step` doesn't apply (branchone, branchall, forloopflow, whileloopflow, identity, and AI agent steps cannot themselves be tested in isolation — for branchone/branchall/forloopflow/whileloopflow, the *contained* steps can, by passing the inner step's id).
|
|
|
|
### After writing — offer to run, don't wait passively
|
|
|
|
This is about **programmatic execution** (`wmill flow preview -d '<args>'`), which actually runs the flow and has side effects. Visual preview (the `preview` skill) is offered separately — see "Visual preview" below.
|
|
|
|
If the user hasn't already told you to run/test the flow, offer it as a one-sentence next step (e.g. "Want me to run `wmill flow preview` with sample args?"). Do not present a multi-option menu.
|
|
|
|
If the user already asked to test/run/try the flow in their original request, skip the offer and just execute `wmill flow preview <path> -d '<args>'` directly — pick plausible args from the flow's input schema.
|
|
|
|
`wmill flow preview` is safe to run yourself (it does not deploy). `wmill sync push` and `wmill generate-metadata` modify workspace state or local files — only run these when the user explicitly asks; otherwise tell them which to run.
|
|
|
|
### Visual preview
|
|
|
|
To open the flow visually in the dev page (graph + live reload), use the `preview` skill. Always **offer** it as a one-sentence next step (e.g. "Want me to open the visual preview?") rather than opening it automatically — opening the dev page has side effects (browser window, possibly a `launch.json` entry under MCP-preview branches) the user should consent to. If the user already asked to see/preview/visualize the flow in their original request, skip the offer and just invoke the skill.
|