Workflow Schema Tuning
SkillAI & modelsThis skill guides your AI to tune the workflow schema file in cc-wf-studio, the file that steers how AI editors generate workflows. Once added, your AI can adjust that schema so generated workflows favor the node types you want, and check that no false constraints have crept in.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Open your cc-wf-studio project and tell your AI what to change, such as a node type it keeps skipping or a description to rewrite, and it will update the schema file for you.
Then ask your AI: use the Workflow Schema Tuning skill
What your AI can do with it
- Steer workflow generation toward node types your AI keeps overlooking
- Rewrite schema descriptions to guide how workflows are generated
- Add new node types to the workflow schema
- Check the schema for constraints that are not actually true
- Edit the workflow-schema.json file in cc-wf-studio
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by breaking-brake/cc-wf-studio in .claude/skills/workflow-schema-tuning/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
The schema (resources/workflow-schema.json) is the primary spec delivered to the AI editor at runtime via the get_workflow_schema MCP tool. It is not a runtime validator — the runtime barely validates anything. Whatever the schema says, the AI believes. Treat schema edits as prompt engineering, not type definitions.
Core principle: align direction, do not prescribe rules
AI agents already know how to choose between node types intuitively (e.g., when to delegate to a sub-agent vs. handle in-context). The fix for bad output is almost never "add more rules" — it is "remove what is biasing the AI in the wrong direction."
Defaults:
- Prefer minimal description text that states each node's positional role (立ち位置). Example: "A step executed by the main orchestrating agent" vs. "A step executed by an isolated sub-agent." The contrast does the work.
- Avoid
aiGenerationGuidancelists of "when to use / when not to use / anti-patterns." They treat the AI as a rules engine, bloat tokens, and fail on unanticipated cases. - Test minimal first. Only add guidance after a concrete failure where the minimal change is provably insufficient.
Anti-pattern: writing detailed upgradeToSubAgentWhen / stayInPromptWhen lists. If you find yourself writing 3+ bullets explaining when to use a node, the description itself is probably wrong.
Schema architecture
| File | Role | Editable? |
|---|---|---|
resources/workflow-schema.json | Single source of truth | YES |
resources/workflow-schema.toon | Token-efficient format consumed by AI via MCP | NO — auto-generated |
resources/ai-editing-skill-template.md | Skill template loaded at AI editor launch | YES |
scripts/generate-toon-schema.ts | TOON generator | YES (rare) |
After editing .json, regenerate .toon:
npm run generate:toon
The full build (npm run build) does this automatically as the first step.
Where biases hide (audit checklist)
When the AI consistently picks the wrong node type, look here in priority order:
ai-editing-skill-template.mdstep 4 — strongest pull. A line like "use built-in sub-agents by default" overrides every other signal in the schema. Keep this neutral.nodeTypes.<type>.description— the AI's first impression of what each node means. Keep terse, contrastive, role-focused.nodeTypes.<type>.aiGenerationGuidance— when present, this is read closely. Audit for stale "default" framings or anti-patterns that no longer apply.examples[]— the AI learns strongly from examples. If every example uses one node type, expect that node to dominate output.- Top-level constraints (
connections.overview.forbidden,exportValidationRules,postGenerationChecklist) — these can encode false constraints (e.g., "no cycles allowed" when the runtime allows them, since the runtime is an AI that uses judgment, not a deterministic executor). Removing false constraints is itself a valid improvement.
Workflow for making changes
- Diagnose: identify the symptom (wrong node type chosen, false constraint cited in AI's reasoning, etc.).
- Locate the bias: walk the audit checklist above. Look for a single source pulling the AI in the wrong direction before adding new content.
- Minimal edit: prefer removing biased text or fixing one description over adding new sections.
- Regenerate TOON:
npm run generate:toon. - Validate:
npm run check && npm run build. - Test:
npm run debuglaunches a fresh Extension Development Host. Trigger the AI editor with a node-type-agnostic prompt (no hints like "use a sub-agent for X") and inspect the generated workflow. - Iterate: if the minimal change is insufficient, add the smallest additional signal — not a guidance section.
Important constraints
- The framework is multi-agent (Claude Code, Codex, "other"). Schema text must be agent-agnostic. Avoid Claude-specific phrasing like "isolated Claude session" — use "isolated AI agent session" or "isolated sub-agent."
- The runtime is an AI agent making judgments, not a deterministic program. Constraints that make sense in code (no cycles, no infinite loops) often do not apply here. Verify before transcribing programming-style constraints.
- After
generate:toon, confirm the change took effect by grepping the relevant string inworkflow-schema.toon. The MCP delivers TOON, not JSON.
Commit conventions for schema changes
Per the project's conventional commit policy:
- Description fixes / bias removal →
improvement:(patch bump) - Build/tooling-only changes →
chore:(no release) - Keep subjects ≤50 chars, body 3–5 bullets, "what changed" only
- Split unrelated concerns into separate commits to make diffs reviewable
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 5k
- Forks
- 568
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
workflow-schema-tuning- Source
- github.com/breaking-brake/cc-wf-studio