
Description
Author and run CAO Python workflow scripts — multi-step, parameterized, fan-out orchestrations executed by `cao workflow run`. Use when the user wants a repeatable multi-step job (e.g. data analysis over many files, a review pipeline, a parameterized batch). Authoring ends at a validated script file; running it is a separate, user-approved step.
SKILL.md
CAO Workflows
A CAO workflow is a Python script you write, validate, and — only after asking the user —
run through cao workflow run. Each script drives one or more agent steps through CAO's
shared substrate, so you can fan work out across agents, collect their results, and resume a
run that was interrupted.
Your job as an author ends at a validated script file on disk. Authoring does NOT run the workflow. Never claim a workflow ran, or will run, when all you did was write it. Running is a separate step the user must approve (see Lifecycle step c).
When to use
Reach for this skill when the user asks to build or run a multi-step or parameterized workflow — for example:
- "Analyze every file in
reports/and summarize the findings." - "Run a review pipeline: implement, then review, then verify."
- "Do the same batch job but with a different input directory each time."
If the work is a single one-off agent call, you don't need a workflow. Workflows earn their keep when there are multiple steps, fan-out, parameterization, or a need to resume.
The script API
Author scripts import from the cao_workflow package. This package runs only in the script
subprocess and imports nothing from cli_agent_orchestrator.* — it talks to CAO over HTTP.
Its public surface:
run_step(provider, agent, prompt, *, step_id=None, timeout=None, **opts) -> StepHandle— run one agent step.StepHandlehas.step_id,.terminal_id,.output,.status.get_inputs() -> dict— the run's resolved inputs (see Parameterized workflows). Returns{}when nothing was declared; never raises on absence.emit_output(value)— print the run-levelCAO_WORKFLOW_OUTPUT:sentinel (the run's return).ShimError(andShimIdentityError,ShimTransportError,ShimHTTPError) — the failure hierarchyrun_stepraises. Failures surface unchanged — the shim never retries.
Lifecycle
Follow every step in order. No step may be skipped — validate is mandatory, and you must ask before running.
a. AUTHOR
Write a .py file to ~/.aws/cli-agent-orchestrator/workflows/<name>.py. The workflow is
run by its stem (<name>), so:
- The name must be a bare stem — no path separators, no directory prefix.
- Do not create a same-stem
.yamlsibling — a<name>.yamlnext to<name>.pycollides on the run surface.
b. VALIDATE (mandatory gate)
cao workflow validate ~/.aws/cli-agent-orchestrator/workflows/<name>.py
Fix every finding before proceeding — the lint findings are load-bearing, not style nits:
import cli_agent_orchestratoris banned. The script runs in a separate subprocess and must reach CAO only over HTTP (thecao_workflowshim). Importing the server package breaks that boundary.random/time/datetime/uuidwarnings. Resume re-executes the script top-to-bottom and replays journaled step results. Any nondeterministic value computed at the top level will differ on replay and raiseReplayDivergenceError. Keep the script deterministic: derive IDs from inputs, not from the clock or an RNG.
c. ASK the user — NEVER auto-run
The script tier executes generated Python. Never run a workflow without the user's explicit approval. Present the validated file and ask before doing anything in step d.
d. RUN with an explicit, pre-announced run-id
Announce the run-id before you start so the user can cancel it:
"Starting run kb-1 — cancel with cao workflow cancel kb-1."
Choose the invocation by how the run is triggered, because the two paths have very different client-side ceilings:
cao workflow run(CLI) uses a client socket timeout of ~8820s (~2.45h) — the CLI itself won't give up early.workflow_runMCP tool is bounded by the MCP host's own per-tool-call timeout — a host-dependent, much-shorter limit that can drop a long blocking call and lose its return value even though the server run keeps going.
So:
- Short runs: call the
workflow_runMCP tool (blocking) and read the result directly. - Long runs: background the run and poll, rather than blocking on it —
Backgrounding keeps the run alive server-side without a short MCP host timeout silently dropping the return.
cao workflow run <name> --run-id <id> --json &
e. RESUME
cao workflow resume <run-id>
Resume replays completed steps from the journal and continues from the first incomplete one. Deterministic scripts (see step b) resume clean; nondeterministic ones diverge.
Parameterized workflows
Instead of editing a constant per run, declare inputs once and pass values at invocation time.
Add a module-level INPUTS dict and read the resolved values at runtime with
get_inputs():
from cao_workflow import get_inputs
INPUTS = {
"target_dir": {"type": "path", "required": True},
"max_files": {"type": "int", "required": False, "default": 20},
"verbose": {"type": "bool", "required": False, "default": False},
}
inputs = get_inputs()
target_dir = inputs["target_dir"]
max_files = inputs.get("max_files", 20)
Each entry declares type (string | int | bool | path), required, and an optional
default. This makes one authored script reusable — "author once, invoke with inputs."
Operational discipline
These rules are load-bearing. Each is paired with the reason it exists.
R1 — Fan-out determinism
To run steps concurrently, use a ThreadPoolExecutor and give every concurrent run_step an
explicit, stable step_id. The sequential call-N counter fallback is race-free but not
deterministic across runs under concurrent scheduling — so resume would replay the wrong
results. Iterate over sorted() inputs so the mapping from item → step_id is stable.
Default max_workers=2 for claude_code (measured: 4 starved the heaviest lens). Expose it as
a tunable input; higher values are fine when steps are light.
R2 — Secrets as references, never literals
Inputs are journaled in plaintext and replayed on resume. Never pass a literal secret (token, key, password) as an input. Pass a name/reference and resolve the actual secret at step time (env var, secrets manager) inside the step.
R3 — Role-capability matching
Only write-capable roles (e.g. developer) should be told to write files. A read-only
role (e.g. reviewer) instructed to write will hang the full step budget waiting on a
permission it can't get. Read-only steps must READ their inputs and RETURN findings inline.
R4 — Per-unit fault tolerance
Catch ShimError inside each fan-out unit so one step's timeout degrades to a survivor set
rather than failing the whole run with a 504. Return a sentinel/None for the failed unit and
let the aggregate proceed.
Big-outputs discipline
For large results, have the step write to a file and return the path — don't return
megabytes inline. Per-step output is null for schema-less steps; the files (and the aggregate
you build) are the source of truth.
R5 (INTERIM) — Prefer a headless provider
Prefer claude_code as the step provider. kiro_cli currently launches an interactive TUI
that hangs run_step. This is interim guidance — a kiro mitigation is a tracked follow-up,
not a permanent verdict — but until it lands, use a headless provider.
Projection ranking
The runtime journal is the primary truth for progress and UI — it reflects what actually ran. A static script→YAML preview is optional and lossy; never treat it as the truth source and never author against it.
Handoff when you're read-only
If you lack write permission (you can't create the .py file), hand off authoring to a
developer agent, and pass this skill's name (cao-workflow) in the handoff message so the
developer follows the same lifecycle.
Honesty discipline
- Never claim a workflow ran that didn't.
- Authoring ends at a validated file; running is a separate, user-approved step.
- Be honest about failures — surface
ShimErrors and non-zero validate findings; don't paper over them.
Worked example — parameterized fan-out
A script that summarizes each file in a directory concurrently, with a stable step_id per
file, per-unit fault tolerance, and results written to disk:
"""summarize_dir — fan out a summary step over every file in target_dir."""
import os
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor
from cao_workflow import run_step, emit_output, get_inputs, ShimError
# Parameterized: author once, invoke with different inputs.
INPUTS = {
"target_dir": {"type": "path", "required": True},
"max_workers": {"type": "int", "required": False, "default": 2},
}
inputs = get_inputs()
target_dir = inputs["target_dir"]
max_workers = inputs.get("max_workers", 2)
# sorted() → the item→step_id mapping is stable across runs (R1 determinism).
files = sorted(
name for name in os.listdir(target_dir)
if os.path.isfile(os.path.join(target_dir, name))
)
def summarize(filename: str):
path = os.path.join(target_dir, filename)
try:
# Explicit, STABLE step_id per concurrent call (R1). Read-only role
# RETURNS its summary inline (R3) — it does not write files.
handle = run_step(
provider="claude_code", # headless (R5)
agent="reviewer",
prompt=f"Summarize the file at {path} in 3 bullet points. Return the summary only.",
step_id=f"summarize:{filename}",
)
return filename, handle.output
except ShimError as exc:
# Per-unit tolerance (R4): one timeout degrades to a survivor, not a 504.
return filename, f"ERROR: {exc}"
with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=max_workers) as pool:
results = dict(pool.map(summarize, files))
# Big output → write to a file, return the path (big-outputs discipline).
out_path = os.path.join(target_dir, "_summaries.json")
with open(out_path, "w") as fh:
import json
json.dump(results, fh, indent=2)
emit_output({"summarized": len(results), "output_file": out_path})
Validate it, ask the user, then run with a pre-announced run-id:
cao workflow validate ~/.aws/cli-agent-orchestrator/workflows/summarize_dir.py
# fix findings, then — after the user approves:
cao workflow run summarize_dir --run-id sum-1 --json &
More skills from the cli-agent-orchestrator repository
View all 14 skillsadd-app-to-server
add interactive UI to MCP servers
Jul 12FrontendMCPPlugin DevelopmentUI Componentsagui-author
emit interactive dashboard UI components
Jul 22AgentsDashboardsMCPUI Componentscao-mcp-apps
operate CAO MCP application surfaces
Jul 22AgentsCLIMCPUI Componentscao-memory
manage durable agent memory and preferences
Jul 12AgentsMemoryProductivitycao-plugin
scaffold CAO agent plugins
Jul 12AgentsAutomationCLIPlugin Developmentcao-provider
create CLI agent providers for CAO
Jul 12AgentsAutomationCLIEngineering
More from AWS Labs
View publisheragentcore-investigation
investigate Bedrock AgentCore runtime sessions
mcp
Jul 12AWSDebuggingLogsObservabilityamazon aurora dsql
build applications with Aurora DSQL
mcp
Jul 12AuroraAWSDatabaseServerless +1aurora dsql
build applications with Aurora DSQL
mcp
Jul 12AWSDatabaseServerlessSQLaws dsql
build applications with Aurora DSQL
mcp
Jul 12AWSDatabaseMigrationServerless +1distributed postgres
build applications with Aurora DSQL
mcp
Jul 12AWSDatabasePostgreSQLServerless +1distributed sql
build applications with Aurora DSQL
mcp
Jul 12AWSDatabaseServerlessSQL