Docs / Comparisons
CHP vs workflow automation
Workflow automation centers predefined flows. CHP centers reusable capability primitives that can be governed and composed.
Plain English
Workflows decide the sequence. CHP defines the trusted units each sequence can call.
Why it exists
Applications and agents need capability boundaries that remain useful across many workflows, not only one automation graph.
Formal definition
CHP describes hosted capability contracts that workflow systems, agents, and applications can invoke while preserving policy, lifecycle, outcome, and evidence semantics.
Concrete example
Ground the concept before the schema.
complete_service_visit can compose query_inventory, schedule_technician, and notify_customer without hiding each host boundary.
Finds an available qualified technician and reserves a service window.
Category contrast
CHP vs workflow automation: what changes
CHP can complement adjacent systems, but it centers a different protocol boundary.
Compared to
Workflow automation
They center
Predefined process graphs, triggers, and orchestration logic.
CHP centers
Reusable hosted capability units with policy, lifecycle, outcome, and evidence.
Use workflow tools to arrange steps.
Use CHP to make each step independently inspectable and governable.
Use composition evidence to explain partial failure.
Relationships
Where this sits in the protocol.
Each concept should explain its neighbors so implementation teams can preserve the boundary across manifests, invocation, evidence, and tests.
Workflow automation can orchestrate CHP capabilities.
Composition should preserve each capability result and evidence stream.
Conformance can test host behavior independent of workflow tools.
Visual model
- 01Workflow selects a sequence.
- 02Each step invokes a CHP capability.
- 03Evidence records the capability-level outcome for each step.
Implementation notes
- Keep capability contracts reusable outside a single workflow.
- Represent partial failures by capability and host.
- Avoid bundling every step into one opaque capability.
Common mistakes
- Treating workflow steps as private implementation details only.
- Losing host identity in composed flows.
- Skipping policy checks because the workflow is predefined.
Related concepts