| name | Agent Orchestration Patterns |
| description | Multi-agent coordination patterns for building effective AI teams |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| license | MIT |
| tier | community |
Agent Orchestration Patterns
Build coordinated AI teams that work together seamlessly
This skill provides battle-tested patterns for orchestrating multiple AI agents to solve complex problems collaboratively.
Core Principles
1. Single Responsibility Agents
Each agent should have one clear purpose. Generalists create confusion; specialists create excellence.
Bad:
GeneralAgent: "Does everything - UI, backend, writing, testing"
Good:
FrontendAgent: "React components, styling, accessibility"
BackendAgent: "APIs, database, business logic"
TestAgent: "Unit tests, integration tests, E2E"
2. Clear Communication Protocols
Define how agents share information, hand off work, and resolve conflicts.
Handoff Protocol:
From: BackendAgent
To: FrontendAgent
Includes:
- API contract (types, endpoints)
- Example payloads
- Error scenarios
- Authentication requirements
3. Orchestrator Pattern
One agent coordinates; others execute. Prevents chaos and conflicting directions.
┌─────────────────┐
│ ORCHESTRATOR │
│ (Coordinates) │
└────────┬────────┘
│
┌────────────────────┼────────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐
│ Agent A │ │ Agent B │ │ Agent C │
│ (Executes) │ │ (Executes) │ │ (Executes) │
└───────────────┘ └───────────────┘ └───────────────┘
Orchestration Patterns
Pattern 1: Sequential Pipeline
Best for: Tasks with clear dependencies where each step requires the previous step's output.
Pipeline:
1. Research Agent → Gathers information
2. Analysis Agent → Processes findings (needs step 1)
3. Writing Agent → Creates content (needs step 2)
4. Review Agent → Quality check (needs step 3)
Implementation:
## Sequential Pipeline Protocol
### Step 1: Research Phase
**Agent:** Research Agent
**Input:** User query
**Output:** Structured research document
**Completion Signal:** "Research complete. Findings ready for analysis."
### Step 2: Analysis Phase
**Agent:** Analysis Agent
**Input:** Research document from Step 1
**Output:** Analyzed insights with recommendations
**Completion Signal:** "Analysis complete. Ready for content creation."
### Step 3: Writing Phase
**Agent:** Writing Agent
**Input:** Analysis from Step 2
**Output:** Draft content
**Completion Signal:** "Draft complete. Ready for review."
### Step 4: Review Phase
**Agent:** Review Agent
**Input:** Draft from Step 3
**Output:** Final content with quality assessment
**Completion Signal:** "Review complete. Content finalized."
Pattern 2: Parallel Fan-Out
Best for: Independent tasks that can run simultaneously.
Fan-Out:
Orchestrator splits task into:
- Agent A: Frontend components
- Agent B: Backend APIs
- Agent C: Database schema
Fan-In:
- Orchestrator collects results
- Integrates into unified solution
Implementation:
## Parallel Fan-Out Protocol
### Split Phase
**Orchestrator Action:** Divide task into independent workstreams
**Criteria for parallelization:**
- No shared state dependencies
- No sequential requirements
- Clear interface contracts defined
### Parallel Execution
**Agent A:** [Task description]
- Works independently
- Reports completion status
**Agent B:** [Task description]
- Works independently
- Reports completion status
**Agent C:** [Task description]
- Works independently
- Reports completion status
### Integration Phase
**Orchestrator Action:**
- Wait for all agents to complete
- Resolve any interface conflicts
- Integrate outputs into unified result
Pattern 3: Specialist Consultation
Best for: Tasks requiring domain expertise at specific points.
Consultation:
Primary Agent working...
→ Hits domain-specific challenge
→ Consults Specialist Agent
→ Receives expert guidance
→ Continues with enhanced solution
Implementation:
## Specialist Consultation Protocol
### Recognition Triggers
The primary agent should consult a specialist when:
- Task requires domain-specific knowledge
- Decision has significant architectural impact
- Quality standard requires expert validation
- Risk mitigation requires specialized review
### Consultation Format
**From:** [Primary Agent]
**To:** [Specialist Agent]
**Context:** [What we're building]
**Question:** [Specific question]
**Constraints:** [Relevant limitations]
**Expected Output:** [What we need back]
### Response Integration
Specialist provides:
- Direct answer to question
- Reasoning behind recommendation
- Potential alternatives considered
- Caveats or edge cases
Pattern 4: Debate & Synthesis
Best for: Complex decisions where multiple perspectives improve outcomes.
Debate:
Agent A: Argues for Approach 1
Agent B: Argues for Approach 2
Agent C: Synthesizes best of both
Orchestrator: Makes final decision
Implementation:
## Debate & Synthesis Protocol
### Phase 1: Position Development
**Agent A:** Develops Position 1
- State the approach clearly
- List all advantages
- Acknowledge weaknesses
- Provide implementation path
**Agent B:** Develops Position 2
- State the approach clearly
- List all advantages
- Acknowledge weaknesses
- Provide implementation path
### Phase 2: Critique
Each agent critiques the other's position:
- What's missing?
- What's overestimated?
- What edge cases are unhandled?
### Phase 3: Synthesis
**Synthesis Agent:**
- Extract best elements from each position
- Resolve contradictions
- Propose hybrid solution if beneficial
### Phase 4: Decision
**Orchestrator:**
- Evaluate all positions and synthesis
- Make final decision with reasoning
- Document decision rationale
Pattern 5: Hierarchical Delegation
Best for: Large projects requiring multiple levels of coordination.
┌─────────────────┐
│ ORCHESTRATOR │
│ (Strategic) │
└────────┬────────┘
│
┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐
│ Team Lead A │ │ Team Lead B │ │ Team Lead C │
│ (Tactical) │ │ (Tactical) │ │ (Tactical) │
└───────┬───────┘ └───────┬───────┘ └───────┬───────┘
│ │ │
┌──────┴──────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
┌───────┐ ┌───────┐ ... ... ... ...
│Agent 1│ │Agent 2│
└───────┘ └───────┘
Communication Contracts
Agent-to-Agent Message Format
Message:
from: "agent_id"
to: "agent_id"
type: "request|response|status|handoff"
priority: "low|normal|high|critical"
content:
summary: "Brief description"
details: "Full content"
artifacts: ["list of outputs"]
context:
conversation_id: "unique_id"
parent_message: "optional_id"
related_tasks: ["task_ids"]
Status Reporting Protocol
Status Update:
agent: "agent_id"
timestamp: "ISO 8601"
status: "idle|working|blocked|complete|error"
current_task: "description"
progress: "0-100%"
blockers: ["list of blockers"]
next_steps: ["planned actions"]
estimated_completion: "optional timestamp"
Error Escalation Protocol
Error Report:
agent: "agent_id"
severity: "warning|error|critical"
error_type: "category"
description: "what went wrong"
attempted_solutions: ["what we tried"]
suggested_actions: ["what might help"]
requires_human: true|false
blocks_progress: true|false
Quality Gates
Before Agent Assignment
- Task clearly defined
- Success criteria established
- Dependencies mapped
- Appropriate agent selected
- Resources available
During Execution
- Progress being reported
- Blockers escalated promptly
- Quality standards maintained
- Timeline on track
After Completion
- Deliverables meet criteria
- No known defects
- Documentation complete
- Handoff information ready
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
1. The Generalist Trap
Problem: One agent tries to do everything Symptom: Inconsistent quality, context overload Solution: Split into specialized agents
2. The Circular Dependency
Problem: Agent A waits for B, B waits for C, C waits for A Symptom: Deadlock, no progress Solution: Identify and break cycles, define clear ordering
3. The Silent Agent
Problem: Agent works without status updates Symptom: Orchestrator has no visibility, surprises at completion Solution: Require regular status reports
4. The Micro-Manager
Problem: Orchestrator controls every small decision Symptom: Bottleneck at orchestrator, slow progress Solution: Delegate decisions within boundaries
5. The Scope Creeper
Problem: Agent expands task beyond assignment Symptom: Delayed completion, unnecessary work Solution: Clear scope definition, confirmation before expansion
Team Templates
Minimal Development Team (3 agents)
Team:
Architect:
Role: Orchestrator + Technical decisions
Responsibilities: Planning, coordination, architecture
Builder:
Role: Implementation
Responsibilities: Frontend, backend, integrations
Validator:
Role: Quality assurance
Responsibilities: Testing, review, documentation
Standard Development Team (5 agents)
Team:
Architect:
Role: Orchestrator
Frontend:
Role: UI specialist
Backend:
Role: API/data specialist
DevOps:
Role: Infrastructure
QA:
Role: Testing specialist
Full Product Team (8+ agents)
Team:
Product:
Strategist: Vision and roadmap
Designer: UX/UI design
Engineering:
Architect: Technical leadership
Frontend: UI implementation
Backend: Services implementation
DevOps: Infrastructure
QA: Testing
Content:
Writer: Documentation, copy
Integration with Claude Code
Agent Definition Format
# .claude/agents/example-agent.md
---
name: Example Agent
description: What this agent does
model: sonnet|opus
mcpServers:
- server-name
workingDirectories:
- /path/to/focus
---
# Agent Name
## Mission
What this agent aims to accomplish.
## Responsibilities
- Specific duty 1
- Specific duty 2
## Capabilities
- What tools/skills it can use
## Communication Protocol
How it reports status and coordinates.
Skill Loading
# Reference this skill in your session
Skills:
- .claude/skills/community/agent-orchestration
"A team of specialized agents, well-coordinated, will always outperform a single generalist."