amiel-35 pitches a standard shape for Mike's workflows, and it stalls

amiel-35 put forward a common format for describing Mike workflows and prompt packs: a written spec, a machine-readable definition of what a workflow should contain, and two worked examples (a chat-style assistant flow and a table-driven review flow) to show the shape in practice. Deliberately, none of it was hooked into the running product - this was a shared blueprint to agree on before anyone builds the machinery behind it.

The pitch was that once workflows are written down in a consistent structure, they become far easier to review, version, translate for other languages, move between systems, and accept contributions on. It followed earlier discussion on the same theme. After about seven weeks open, the proposal was closed without being adopted, so for now it stays an idea rather than a convention.