Root Scripts & Workspace Commands Recursive execution, filters, command scope, and why the repository root coordinates work without becoming another application.
Root Scripts and Workspace Commands The repository root is now a control plane. This book teaches the commands you will use to inspect and eventually orchestrate packages, while keeping Phase 02 intentionally small.
Start with one script that has a job Our root package.json contains only one repository-level script:
"scripts": { "workspace:list": "pnpm list -r --depth -1" }
That script answers a real question: which packages does pnpm currently see in the workspace? It is useful now and remains useful later.
Recursive execution The -r or --recursive flag runs a command across workspace packages. Once web and API exist, recursive commands let the root coordinate common scripts without changing directories repeatedly.
pnpm -r --if-present run lint
pnpm -r --if-present run typecheck
pnpm -r --if-present run testWhy --if-present? Different packages may not define every script at the same time while the course is evolving. --if-present lets a repository-level command skip packages that do not define the requested script instead of failing immediately. Later, when consistency matters, we may remove that leniency for specific checks.
Filtering Filters target part of the workspace. After applications exist, you can run a command for a named package or dependency graph instead of the entire repository.
pnpm --filter <package-name> run devDo not memorize complicated filter syntax yet. Learn the idea: recursion means many packages; filtering means a selected subset.
root command
many subset alternative
-r / recursive --filter run inside package
runs runs runs
web api shared
Do not create future scripts before the packages exist It is tempting to add dev, build, lint, test and typecheck scripts now because we know we will eventually need them. Resist that urge. A root script should coordinate real package scripts. Phase 03 and 04 will create the applications, then the root can acquire orchestration scripts that we can actually run and verify.
What the root package.json should look like now { "name": "taskflow", "version": "0.0.0", "private": true, "packageManager": "pnpm@12.4.2", "engines": { "node": ">=24.21.0 <25" }, "scripts": { "workspace:list": "pnpm list -r --depth -1" } }
Future shape - not yet added { "scripts": { "dev": "pnpm -r --parallel --if-present run dev", "build": "pnpm -r --if-present run build", "lint": "pnpm -r --if-present run lint", "typecheck": "pnpm -r --if-present run typecheck", "test": "pnpm -r --if-present run test" } }
This preview explains the destination. It is not an instruction to modify the Phase 02 root. We will add scripts only when there are packages behind them.
Command scope is part of debugging Question Command
Where am I? Get-Location
What files exist, including dotfiles? Get-ChildItem -Force
What packages does pnpm see? pnpm run workspace:list
Which pnpm executable is running? Get-Command pnpm
Which Node executable is running? Get-Command node
What changed in Git? git status
Checkpoint • You understand root scripts as orchestration, not application logic. • You know the difference between recursive and filtered execution. • You can explain why the root currently has only workspace:list. • You can identify the working directory before running a command. • You know that adding more tooling is not progress unless it solves an observed problem.
Root Scripts and Workspace Commands matters because it changes a real boundary in TaskFlow. The goal is to understand the inputs, owner, observable output, and failure modes before adding more abstraction.
Restate the goal of “Root Scripts and Workspace Commands” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.
Trace the boundary map: repository root → workspace package → dependency graph → task runner → artifact. Mark the one boundary this lesson changes.
Inspect the current repository state and record the exact files, route, table, or runtime involved. Avoid creating an abstraction before you can name the existing owner.
Implement the smallest vertical slice. Add one coherent change, run the narrowest verification command, and read the output before continuing.
Connect the slice to TaskFlow’s phase artifact: TaskFlow repository root with apps/web, apps/api, shared packages, workspace metadata, root scripts, and clean Git hygiene.. Verify behavior from the outside as a user or API client would.
Create one controlled failure that is safe to reproduce. Predict the symptom first, capture evidence, locate the earliest broken boundary, then fix only that cause.
Close the reference and rebuild or explain the core change from memory. Record what you would monitor or test before trusting the same change in production.
Input -> owner -> transformation -> observable output -> failure evidenceDo not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.
Return to the nearest observable boundary: input, network, process log, database, or rendered UI. Compare actual evidence with the predicted path.
Change one variable at a time and reproduce the original failure after the fix; otherwise you have correlation, not diagnosis.
Without copying the final source, create a second small scenario that applies “Root Scripts and Workspace Commands” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Create a shared TypeScript configuration package and consume it through workspace dependencies.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Committing build output, environment files, or node_modules
Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?
If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.