Is this a valid workflow pipeline (ruflo)

Task/Issue ▼ [PLAN] Fable 5 (lead) │ spawns read-only investigation subagents (agent_spawn) to explore │ affected modules, dependencies, prior related changes │ produces: sub-tasks, file list, risk tier, acceptance criteria ▼ [WRITE] GPT-5.6 Sol (lead, via Codex) │ decomposes plan into per-file/per-module subtasks │ spawns Sol subagents, one per subtask, each in its own worktree │ each subagent self-verifies (compiles, own unit tests) before reporting back │ Sol integrates subagent diffs into one cohesive diff, resolves conflicts │ (single-file low-risk tasks: Sol just writes it directly, no fan-out) ▼ [FAST CHECK] Opus 5 (lead) │ spawns check subagents in parallel: full test suite, lint/type-check, │ diff-matches-plan verification, basic security-pattern scan │ aggregates to one pass/fail │ FAIL → bounce to WRITE (max 2 retries, then escalate to human) ▼ PASS [RISK GATE] from Fable 5's plan │ (any task that triggered subagent fan-out in WRITE is auto-flagged │ at least medium risk — more moving parts, more that can go wrong │ in Sol's own integration step) ├─ low risk ──────────────────► auto-merge, log outcome, done └─ med/high risk ▼ [VOTE] 3 independent peers, parallel, blind to each other until all report: • Opus 5 — mechanical/correctness • Qwen 3.8 — architecture/security/plan-fidelity • Sonnet 5 — fast independent second opinion ├─ unanimous/2-of-3 approve ──► auto-merge (medium risk only) └─ any dissent, or high risk ──► human review, always ▼ [LEARN] every outcome, now at subagent granularity: which specific subtask/module needed rework, not just which task → Ruflo memory_store → feeds back into PLAN (risk flags) and WRITE (which modules Sol handles directly vs. escalates)Task/Issue