Reference for how BDB structures autonomous software engineering work — the seven-node dispatcher graph (Architect, TechLead, UI/UX, Engineering, Media/EventTech, Reviewer, Shipping) that /startcycle-graph actually runs. Use when you need the high-level lifecycle framing without inventing your own process.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Agent Pipeline?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hybridlabor-api-agent-pipeline)
---
name: agent-pipeline
description: Reference for how BDB structures autonomous software engineering work — the seven-node dispatcher graph (Architect, TechLead, UI/UX, Engineering, Media/EventTech, Reviewer, Shipping) that /startcycle-graph actually runs. Use when you need the high-level lifecycle framing without inventing your own process.
category: bdb-core
---
# 🔄 BDB Software Engineering Pipeline
When orchestrating or executing autonomous software development, follow the
lifecycle below — but the **real, runnable implementation is
[`.agents/graph.md`](../../../.agents/graph.md)**, invoked via `/startcycle-graph`
(see [`skills/basic/startcycle-graph/SKILL.md`](../../basic/startcycle-graph/SKILL.md)).
This file is a lifecycle summary, not a second spec — if it and `graph.md`
ever disagree, `graph.md` is right.
```
define plan build verify + review ship
┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────┐
│ Goal │ ─▶ │ Plan │ ─▶ │ UI/UX, │ ─▶ │ Reviewer │ ─▶ │ Shipping│
│ │ │ │ │ Engineering,│ │ (adversarial)│ │ (gate) │
│ │ │ │ │ Media/Event│ │ │ │ │
└──────┘ └──────┘ └────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └─────────┘
Architect TechLead the build nodes no-progress guard requires GO
run in parallel repairs loop back to actually ship
```
There is no separate `/spec`, `/plan`, `/build`, `/test`, `/review`, or
`/ship` slash command — an earlier version of this file described those and
a `Planner_Orchestrator` agent that no longer exists (split into Architect +
TechLead; see `graph.md`'s Nodes section for why). The whole lifecycle above
runs through the single `/startcycle-graph` entry point, which invokes each node
in turn per `graph.md`'s edge table:
| Stage | Node(s) | Reads | Writes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Define + Plan | Architect, TechLead | `state.goal` | `state.artifacts.plan` |
| Build | Godmode_UI_UX, Godmode_Engineering, Godmode_Media_EventTech (if needed) | the plan | their own artifacts |
| Verify + Review | Reviewer | build artifacts + contract only, never the implementer's claim | `state.findings` |
| Ship | Godmode_Shipping | all artifacts, findings | `state.gate`, requires a human `GO` |
**The one rule, unchanged from `graph.md`:** these nodes never invoke each
other. A dispatcher — the `/startcycle-graph` workflow, or the main session acting
as one — reads `production_artifacts/state.json` after each node returns and
decides what runs next.
## 1. Overview
This file exists so anyone (human or agent) asking "what's the BDB software
lifecycle?" gets the real shape of it, without re-deriving it from `graph.md`
line by line. It is descriptive, not an alternate entry point.
Optional post-ship step, outside the graph: `/design-control-loop` sets up a
recurring improvement loop in CI for a quality goal. It is started manually and
the dispatcher never calls it.
## 2. When to Use
- Use when you need the lifecycle framing (define → plan → build → verify →
ship) to structure a conversation or a manual walkthrough.
- To actually run the pipeline autonomously, invoke `/startcycle-graph` — don't
hand-simulate the stages here.
- Exclude when standard tool execution is sufficient for the task at hand.
## 3. Core Process
1. Read `.agents/graph.md` for the current node/edge contract before
assuming anything about how a stage works — this file summarizes it, it
does not own it.
2. If autonomous execution is needed, invoke `/startcycle-graph` rather than
manually working through the stages above.
3. Verify exit codes, file modifications, or state.json contents to
guarantee a stage's side effects actually happened before reporting
completion.
## 4. Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The code change was small, so I skipped updating OpenWiki docs." | Every state change must be reflected in the relevant system records. |
| "The ingest script exited without an error, so the memB index must be updated." | Silent failures happen; explicit verification of the side effect is mandatory. |
| "I'll let /startcycle-graph proceed without a defined rollback path." | Proceeding without a rollback path corrupts the workflow integrity and safety. |
| "This file's stage descriptions look complete, so I'll follow them 'in spirit' instead of invoking /startcycle-graph." | Exactly the failure this file was rewritten to stop — see `graph.md` and `SESSION-HANDOVER-v3.13.md` for the incident where a duplicated pipeline description caused a model to skip the real dispatcher entirely. |
## 5. Red Flags
- Referencing `/spec`, `/plan`, `/build`, `/test`, `/review`, or `/ship` as
if they are real slash commands in this repo — they are not.
- Referencing `Planner_Orchestrator` as a current agent — it was split into
Architect and TechLead.
- One node's output instructing another node directly instead of the
dispatcher deciding the next step from `state.json` (the hand-off pattern
`graph.md` (F-17) rules out).
- Bypassing the verification step after a script execution.
## 6. Verification
- [ ] Verified script exit codes are explicitly checked.
- [ ] Confirmed target files or `state.json` reflect the expected change.
- [ ] Ensured no silent failures were ignored before reporting success.