docs(readme): add prpm install path for the writing-relayflows skill

[kjgbot]

Summary

• Matches the two install paths already documented on agentrelay.com's Build a flow page (prpm + skills.sh), instead of only showing skills.sh here.
• Fixes the org casing in the URL (agentworkforce → AgentWorkforce) — cosmetic, GitHub paths are case-insensitive, but it matches every other reference to the org in this file.
• Notes the skill is kept current against each release, since AgentWorkforce/skills#106 just refreshed writing-relayflows against the 2.0.16 surface this README's own examples target.

Small, standalone change — doesn't touch or duplicate the in-flight README rewrite in #453.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

---

Note

Low Risk
README-only documentation; no runtime, CI, or credential behavior changes.

Overview
Updates the writing-relayflows skill section so readers see both install paths (prpm and skills.sh), aligned with agentrelay.com’s “Build a flow” docs.

The blurb now states what the skill covers (step ladder, verification gates, flows.json, parallel agents, refusal shapes) and that it is maintained per release. The skills.sh example fixes org casing to AgentWorkforce in the GitHub URL.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a1825c1. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 977f668c-be7e-4106-8b0b-a8150f3e081d

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

Review swarm: maintainability

No fresh transcript was produced for run 08e32405-bbf7-4141-94b4-2330006f2a76 (MISSING).

[github-actions]

Review swarm: history

No fresh transcript was produced for run 08e32405-bbf7-4141-94b4-2330006f2a76 (MISSING).

[github-actions]

Review swarm: structure

No fresh transcript was produced for run 08e32405-bbf7-4141-94b4-2330006f2a76 (MISSING).

[github-actions]

Review swarm: FAILED

• maintainability: MISSING
• history: MISSING
• structure: MISSING

Cloud run: 08e32405-bbf7-4141-94b4-2330006f2a76

[kjgbot]

maintainability lens — FAIL

Maintainability review — PR #463 (README skill install)

The diff is small but ships a claim the repo does not back up and doubles the surface a future maintainer has to keep true.

Blocker

• README.md:74-76 — "kept current against each release" is a promise with no mechanism. The new prose asserts the skill "covers the step ladder, which verification gates actually run today, flows.json, parallel agents, and the real refusal shapes, kept current against each release." Nothing in this repo wires that claim: .github/workflows/ has no prpm publish, no skills-registry sync, no release hook that touches @agent-relay/writing-relayflows (grep confirms prpm appears only here and in unrelated files). This is exactly the shape AGENTS.md §"Evidence is captured, not narrated" warns against — an assertion that reads as guaranteed but is not enforced by the code. Six months from now a reader will trust the skill matches shipped gates; the first release that skips a manual update makes the README a lie. Either wire the publish (release step that fails if the skill package version does not bump) or drop the "kept current against each release" phrase and describe scope in the neutral tense.

Concerns

• README.md:76-83 — two install channels, no canonical source named. The README now offers prpm install @agent-relay/writing-relayflows and skills add https://github.com/AgentWorkforce/skills --skill writing-relayflows. Both point at the same skill, but the diff does not say which is the source of truth or how they stay in sync. Divergence is invisible until a user hits it. Either state that the GitHub repo is canonical and prpm is a mirror (or vice versa), or link a one-liner in-repo that documents the publish contract. Without that boundary, a future change through one channel silently rots the other.
• README.md:74-75 — authoritative behavior lives outside this tree. The refusal shapes and "which verification gates actually run today" are load-bearing correctness facts. Delegating their documentation to an external skill means a reviewer in this repo cannot verify the README is truthful without checking a second repository on a different release cadence. That is fine if acknowledged; today it is not.

Notes

• README.md:82 — org casing agentworkforce → AgentWorkforce. GitHub org URLs are case-insensitive on redirect, so this is cosmetic; the CamelCase form matches how the rest of the repo (AGENTS.md, ops notes) already writes the org.
• The # with prpm / # with skills.sh comment headers read cleanly and won't confuse a stranger — good micro-choice.

REVIEW_FAILED

[kjgbot]

history lens — FAIL

Reading additional input from stdin...
OpenAI Codex v0.153.4

workdir: /Users/khaliqgant/AgentWorkforce/flows-ops
model: gpt-6-astra
provider: openai
approval: never
sandbox: danger-full-access
reasoning effort: high
reasoning summaries: none
session id: 01a0b32d-456b-7300-8cd9-106ffba20fae

user
You are the HISTORY lens on a code-review swarm.
Run git log --oneline -40 and read ops/DRIVE-LOG.md, ops/NEXT.md, and
ops/DIRECTIVES.md if present. Reject the diff ONLY on these three:

1. REPEATS a mistake DRIVE-LOG records — reintroduces a pattern a previous
   commit deliberately removed.
2. INTRODUCES a NEW contradiction with a settled RFC-0001 decision — the
   diff adds a pattern the RFC explicitly rules out.
3. The commit message TELLS UNTRUTHS about the diff — false claims about
   tests, evidence, scope, or files touched.

Scaffolding PRs (explicitly scoped, with deferrals documented in the commit
message or PR body) PASS this lens as long as they do not REGRESS
previously-fixed behavior and do not LIE.

Do NOT reject on:

• Aspirational RFC decisions the diff does not yet fully realize.
• Pre-existing scaffolding the diff does not touch.
• Deferrals that name a follow-up (bundle digests, async drain
  semantics, etc) instead of implementing them all at once.
• A drive-loop-generated file (like ops/NEXT.md) still referencing an
  older gate — that is a follow-up brief-and-tick concern, not a
  correctness violation of the diff being reviewed.

Note those as concerns, not blockers. A scaffolding-first PR that lands
cleanly is more valuable than a monolithic first PR that lands never.

The repository is checked out at your current working directory. Read AGENTS.md,
docs/RFC-0001-everything-is-a-relayflow.md, and any charter file mentioned in
your lens brief before reviewing.

The diff under review is PR #463 on AgentWorkforce/flows:

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 28ee465c..e75a7689 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -71,10 +71,16 @@ See the [example gallery and individual run results](examples/README.md).
 The gallery reports each requested example as PASS or BLOCKED, with its
 command, output, timing, and any capability or provider requirement still missing.
 
-Give your agent a skill to write a flow:
+Give your agent a skill to write a flow — covers the step ladder, which
+verification gates actually run today, `flows.json`, parallel agents, and the
+real refusal shapes, kept current against each release:
 
 ```sh
-npx skills add https://github.com/agentworkforce/skills --skill writing-relayflows
+# with prpm
+npx prpm install @agent-relay/writing-relayflows
+
+# with skills.sh
+npx skills add https://github.com/AgentWorkforce/skills --skill writing-relayflows

GitHub Actions Secrets

Produce a concise review (200-500 words). Cite specific files and line ranges
from the diff. Name blockers vs concerns vs notes.

END your output with EXACTLY ONE of these tokens on its own line:
  REVIEW_PASSED   — no blockers
  REVIEW_FAILED   — at least one blocker
ERROR: You've hit your usage limit. Visit https://chatgpt.com/codex/settings/usage to purchase more credits or try again at Sep 19th, 2026 1:09 AM.
ERROR: You've hit your usage limit. Visit https://chatgpt.com/codex/settings/usage to purchase more credits or try again at Sep 19th, 2026 1:09 AM.

[kjgbot]

structure lens — MISSING

[kjgbot]

🎯 review-swarm: FAILED (M:fail H:fail S:missing)

Lens transcripts posted as sibling comments above.