How do I design a plugin that I can use in my C++ program that is unbound to language (or allows for the broadest compatibility)?
You cannot do that for exactly the same reasons explained in my answer to your (poorly asked) previous question on Writing a language agnostic API? (which is a duplicate of this one).
You cannot expect a universal answer or seek for a universal design.
You need, as always (and apparently, you still don't want to...) to tell more about your context, your motivation your domain. You are seeking for a holy grail design which does not (and probably cannot) exist.
If universal designs existed, you'll already read about them.
Software design is always a matter of trade-off and compromises for a particular problem in a particular domain.
(if you think of games, as for some of your older questions, you should tell that in your question)
As I told in my other answer, plugins for GCC (a free software compiler, you can study all its source code) are different in their design and goals than plugins for Firefox (a free software web browser).
BTW both GCC and Clang/LLVM are free software compilers for C++ accepting plugins, and even if these two software are similar in function, their plugin design is very different and incompatible.
The plugins will be responsible for processing data in the form of file(s) and output more files. The actual task that the plugin completes is dependent on the Plugin but the output should always be a file.
There are many languages which have very different views on file IO. Look for example into the IO monad of Haskell (which I don't know well). It is very different of IO in Ocaml or in C++.
The plugin will run in parallel to my program with it being called when there is a file to process.
I guess that your usage of "plugin" is wrong.
You should try to find a better word, or give your (unconventional) definition of plugins, or at least illustrate that word by existing examples.
A plug-in generally involves some dynamically loaded (using
dlopen on POSIX,
Load Library on Windows) code (which extends the virtual address space on a process). On Linux, every program written in C++ or C claiming to accept plugins (e.g.
xmms2, Qt and GTK applications, Apache or Lighttpd web servers, ....) is using dlopen(3) (perhaps indirectly) to load the plugin at runtime, and all the loaded plugins are technically shared objects in ELF.
(I don't know Windows, but I guess that all plugins loaded by C++ programs on Windows are DLLs, and they are loaded with
LoadLibrary or similar function)
You might not even need any plugin, and you could instead consider inter-process communication.
You might be thinking of software pipelines (but they are not plugins). Then think more in terms of communication protocols. Read about named pipes and anonymous pipes. Look (perhaps for inspiration) into the old unix pipelines (you might want to mimic them on Windows, and some C++ frameworks such as POCO or Qt could be helpful). Read about message passing.
A software pipeline (and notably unix pipelines) enable to make various programs written in different programming languages work together. But you do need to specify some communication protocol. Old Unix utilities supposed a line-by-line protocol, but you might define your messages to be something very different (e.g. JSON, see JSON/RPC for inspiration).
You could also make your C++ application extensible by embedding some interpreter (like Lua, Guile, or even Python ...) or some bytecode VM (like Parrot, NekoVM, ...) in it. But you should not speak of plugins in that case! You probably should speak of extensions, not plugins. For an extremely well known -and decades old- example, Emacs is an extensible editor (I'm using it daily since the 1990s). You can improve its behavior by customizing it in extension written in E-Lisp. Another example (less familiar to me): AutoCAD is a proprietary program extensible in AutoLISP; MicroSoft Word is rumored to be extensible thru macros coded in some Visual Basic dialect. A common way to make a software extensible is indeed to embed some interpreter in it. Of course such an approach is not language agnostic, it is tied to the scripting language accepted by that interpreter.
So my concrete recommendation is to embed some good enough interpreter (like Lua or Guile) in your product, and accept the fact that such extensions won't be language agnostic. In practice, if you choose a good enough extension language, it does not matter much. Both Lua and Guile have been designed as extension languages (and so was Tcl, but I don't recommend using it). My personal preference is Guile (because Scheme is a very elegant and powerful language, quite small and easy to learn, read SICP).
The plugins will be responsible for processing data in the form of file(s) and output more files
If it is only for that (and nothing more ...), you don't need any plugin. You could simply decide that if an output file path name starts with e.g. an exclamation point
! or a vertical bar
| your program would pipe to some external command (BTW such conventions are already used in several Unix programs), or have some program argument conventions to behave like that. On POSIX systems, you'll just for example decide to use popen(3) instead of fopen(3), and that external command could be implemented in any language. You then have a primitive form of software pipelines (which you should of course not call a plugin).
However, I still believe that extending your program by embedding an interpreter is preferable.
NB: It is really sad you don't give more motivations and contexts in your questions. What kind of program are you working on? In what domain? For what audience and users? Why do you ask? Please try hard to give more motivation and context in your future questions, and don't be shy to edit them for improvement. That would help a lot people trying to answer them (and future readers too).