Orchestration Patterns
Orchestration Patterns
Section titled “Orchestration Patterns”Proven patterns for structuring agent teams. Choose the right pattern based on your task’s coordination needs.
Related skills:
- Orchestrating - Primitives overview and quick reference
- Team Management - Team lifecycle tools
- Task System - Task creation and dependencies
- Messaging - Inter-agent communication
- Agent Types - Choosing the right agent for each role
See also: Complete Workflows for full end-to-end examples.
Pattern Selection Guide
Section titled “Pattern Selection Guide”| Pattern | When to Use | Coordination | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parallel Specialists | Multiple independent reviews | Low | None |
| Pipeline | Sequential stages | Medium | Linear chain |
| Swarm | Many similar independent tasks | Low | None |
| Research + Implementation | Learn then build | Low | Phase gate |
| Plan Approval | High-risk changes | High | Approval gate |
| Multi-File Refactoring | Cross-file changes | Medium | Fan-in |
| RLM (Recursive Language Model) | Files exceeding context limits | Medium | Fan-out/fan-in |
Pattern 1: Parallel Specialists
Section titled “Pattern 1: Parallel Specialists”Multiple specialists review code simultaneously, each with a different lens:
// 1. Create teamTeamCreate({ team_name: "code-review", description: "Parallel code review" })
// 2. Spawn specialists in parallel (single message, multiple Task calls)Task({ team_name: "code-review", name: "security", subagent_type: "sdlc:security-reviewer", prompt: "Review the PR for security vulnerabilities. Focus on: SQL injection, XSS, auth bypass. Send findings to team-lead.", run_in_background: true})
Task({ team_name: "code-review", name: "quality", subagent_type: "feature-dev:code-reviewer", prompt: "Review the PR for bugs, logic errors, and performance issues. Focus on: N+1 queries, memory leaks, slow algorithms. Send findings to team-lead.", run_in_background: true})
Task({ team_name: "code-review", name: "simplicity", subagent_type: "code-simplifier:code-simplifier", prompt: "Review the PR for unnecessary complexity. Focus on: over-engineering, premature abstraction, YAGNI violations. Send findings to team-lead.", run_in_background: true})
// 3. Wait for results (messages arrive automatically)// 4. Synthesize findings and cleanupSendMessage({ type: "shutdown_request", recipient: "security", content: "Done" })SendMessage({ type: "shutdown_request", recipient: "quality", content: "Done" })SendMessage({ type: "shutdown_request", recipient: "simplicity", content: "Done" })// Wait for approvals...TeamDelete()Best for: Code reviews, audits, multi-perspective analysis.
Pattern 2: Pipeline
Section titled “Pattern 2: Pipeline”Each stage depends on the previous:
// 1. Create team and task pipelineTeamCreate({ team_name: "feature-pipeline", description: "Feature development pipeline" })
TaskCreate({ subject: "Research", description: "Research best practices for the feature", activeForm: "Researching..." })TaskCreate({ subject: "Plan", description: "Create implementation plan based on research", activeForm: "Planning..." })TaskCreate({ subject: "Implement", description: "Implement the feature according to plan", activeForm: "Implementing..." })TaskCreate({ subject: "Test", description: "Write and run tests for the implementation", activeForm: "Testing..." })TaskCreate({ subject: "Review", description: "Final code review before merge", activeForm: "Reviewing..." })
// Set up sequential dependenciesTaskUpdate({ taskId: "2", addBlockedBy: ["1"] })TaskUpdate({ taskId: "3", addBlockedBy: ["2"] })TaskUpdate({ taskId: "4", addBlockedBy: ["3"] })TaskUpdate({ taskId: "5", addBlockedBy: ["4"] })
// 2. Spawn workers that claim and complete tasksTask({ team_name: "feature-pipeline", name: "researcher", subagent_type: "adr:adr-researcher", prompt: "Claim task #1, research best practices, complete it, send findings to team-lead. Then check for more work.", run_in_background: true})
Task({ team_name: "feature-pipeline", name: "implementer", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Poll TaskList. When task #3 unblocks, claim it and implement. Then complete and notify team-lead.", run_in_background: true})
// Tasks auto-unblock as dependencies completeBest for: Multi-phase features, structured workflows where each step builds on the previous.
Pattern 3: Swarm
Section titled “Pattern 3: Swarm”Workers grab available tasks from a pool (self-organizing):
// 1. Create team and task poolTeamCreate({ team_name: "file-review-swarm", description: "Self-organizing file review" })
// Create many independent tasks (no dependencies)// TaskCreate for each file: auth.rb, user.rb, api_controller.rb, payment.rb, etc.
// 2. Spawn worker swarmconst swarmPrompt = ` You are a swarm worker. Your job: 1. Call TaskList to see available tasks 2. Find a task with status 'pending' and no owner 3. Claim it with TaskUpdate (set owner to your name) 4. Do the work 5. Mark it completed with TaskUpdate 6. Send findings to team-lead 7. Repeat until no tasks remain`
Task({ team_name: "file-review-swarm", name: "worker-1", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: swarmPrompt, run_in_background: true })Task({ team_name: "file-review-swarm", name: "worker-2", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: swarmPrompt, run_in_background: true })Task({ team_name: "file-review-swarm", name: "worker-3", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: swarmPrompt, run_in_background: true })
// Workers race to claim tasks, naturally load-balanceBest for: Many similar, independent tasks (file reviews, migrations, test writing).
Pattern 4: Research + Implementation
Section titled “Pattern 4: Research + Implementation”Research first, then implement with findings:
// 1. Research phase (synchronous, returns results)const research = await Task({ subagent_type: "adr:adr-researcher", description: "Research caching patterns", prompt: "Research best practices for implementing caching in APIs. Include: cache invalidation strategies, Redis vs Memcached, cache key design."})
// 2. Use research to guide implementationTask({ subagent_type: "general-purpose", description: "Implement caching", prompt: ` Implement API caching based on this research:
${research.content}
Focus on the user_controller.rb endpoints. `})Best for: When implementation benefits from prior research. No team needed - uses plain subagents.
Pattern 5: Plan Approval
Section titled “Pattern 5: Plan Approval”Require plan approval before implementation (high-risk changes):
// 1. Create teamTeamCreate({ team_name: "careful-work", description: "Plan-approved implementation" })
// 2. Spawn architect with plan mode requiredTask({ team_name: "careful-work", name: "architect", subagent_type: "Plan", prompt: "Design an implementation plan for adding OAuth2 authentication", mode: "plan", // Requires plan approval run_in_background: true})
// 3. Wait for plan approval request// You'll receive: {"type": "plan_approval_request", ...}
// 4. Review and approve/rejectSendMessage({ type: "plan_approval_response", request_id: "plan-xxx", recipient: "architect", approve: true})// OR reject with feedback:SendMessage({ type: "plan_approval_response", request_id: "plan-xxx", recipient: "architect", approve: false, content: "Please add rate limiting considerations"})Best for: Database migrations, security-sensitive changes, architectural decisions.
Pattern 6: Coordinated Multi-File Refactoring
Section titled “Pattern 6: Coordinated Multi-File Refactoring”// 1. Create team for coordinated refactoringTeamCreate({ team_name: "refactor-auth", description: "Auth module refactoring" })
// 2. Create tasks with clear file boundariesTaskCreate({ subject: "Refactor User model", description: "Extract authentication methods to AuthenticatableUser concern", activeForm: "Refactoring User model..."})
TaskCreate({ subject: "Refactor Session controller", description: "Update to use new AuthenticatableUser concern", activeForm: "Refactoring Sessions..."})
TaskCreate({ subject: "Update specs", description: "Update all authentication specs for new structure", activeForm: "Updating specs..."})
// Dependencies: specs depend on both refactors completingTaskUpdate({ taskId: "3", addBlockedBy: ["1", "2"] })
// 3. Spawn workers for each taskTask({ team_name: "refactor-auth", name: "model-worker", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Claim task #1, refactor the User model, complete when done", run_in_background: true})
Task({ team_name: "refactor-auth", name: "controller-worker", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Claim task #2, refactor the Session controller, complete when done", run_in_background: true})
Task({ team_name: "refactor-auth", name: "spec-worker", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Wait for task #3 to unblock (when #1 and #2 complete), then update specs", run_in_background: true})Best for: Refactoring across multiple files with fan-in dependencies.
Pattern 7: RLM (Recursive Language Model)
Section titled “Pattern 7: RLM (Recursive Language Model)”Divide large files into partitions, analyze each with a parallel agent team, then synthesize.
When to use: Large log analysis, data exports, full-codebase review, CSV processing — any content that exceeds context limits (~1500 lines).
How it works:
- Team lead detects content type and determines partitioning strategy
- Team lead creates a team (
TeamCreate) and tasks (TaskCreate, one per partition) - Team lead spawns analyst teammates (scaled to partition count, with
team_name+name) — NOT plain subagents - Each analyst processes its pre-assigned chunk (1 analyst per partition, fresh context), writes findings to task description via
TaskUpdate, and sends a one-line summary viaSendMessage - Team lead collects inbox messages and synthesizes (or spawns a synthesizer teammate)
- Graceful shutdown (
SendMessageshutdown requests) and cleanup (TeamDelete)
// Create team and partition tasksTeamCreate({ team_name: "rlm-analysis", description: "RLM analysis of large file" })TaskCreate({ subject: "Analyze chunk 1/8", description: "File: path\nStart: 1\nEnd: 1100\nQuery: ...", activeForm: "Analyzing..." })// ... more TaskCreate calls
// Spawn 1 analyst TEAMMATE per partition (fresh context each, staged in batches of ~15)Task({ team_name: "rlm-analysis", name: "analyst-1", subagent_type: "swarm:rlm-chunk-analyzer", prompt: "Analyze chunk 1...", run_in_background: true })Task({ team_name: "rlm-analysis", name: "analyst-2", subagent_type: "swarm:rlm-chunk-analyzer", prompt: "Analyze chunk 2...", run_in_background: true })// ... 1 analyst per partition
// Collect inbox messages, synthesize, shutdown, cleanupCRITICAL: Analysts must be teammates, not plain subagents. Plain subagents dump full output into the leader’s context (8 x 4K = 32K chars), causing context exhaustion. Teammates communicate via inbox messages.
Agent recommendations:
- Analysts: Content-type-specific (
swarm:rlm-code-analyzer,swarm:rlm-data-analyzer,swarm:rlm-json-analyzer, orswarm:rlm-chunk-analyzer) - Synthesizer:
swarm:rlm-synthesizer(Sonnet)
See also: RLM Pattern for content-type detection, partitioning strategies, and full team lifecycle.
Multi-File Variant
Section titled “Multi-File Variant”For directories with mixed content types, the RLM pattern extends to multi-file mode:
- Per-file content-type detection and mixed analyst types in one team
- Tiered partition budget (small/medium/large files) with data-driven sizing
- Small files of the same type batched into single analyst tasks
- Two-phase synthesis: per-type (parallel) then cross-type (sequential)
- Findings written to task descriptions (not SendMessage) to protect Team Lead context
- 1 analyst per task (fresh context each), staged spawning in batches of ~15 for large workloads
See Multi-File Directory Analysis for the full specification and Multi-File RLM Design for the design document.
Best Practices
Section titled “Best Practices”1. Always Cleanup
Section titled “1. Always Cleanup”Don’t leave orphaned teams. Always call TeamDelete() when done.
2. Use Meaningful Names
Section titled “2. Use Meaningful Names”// Goodname: "security-reviewer"name: "oauth-implementer"name: "test-writer"
// Badname: "worker-1"name: "agent-2"3. Write Clear Prompts
Section titled “3. Write Clear Prompts”Tell workers exactly what to do:
// Goodprompt: ` 1. Review app/models/user.rb for N+1 queries 2. Check all ActiveRecord associations have proper includes 3. Document any issues found 4. Send findings to team-lead`
// Badprompt: "Review the code"4. Use Task Dependencies
Section titled “4. Use Task Dependencies”Let the system manage unblocking:
// Good: Auto-unblockingTaskUpdate({ taskId: "2", addBlockedBy: ["1"] })
// Bad: Manual polling"Wait until task #1 is done, check every 30 seconds..."5. Give Teammates Enough Context
Section titled “5. Give Teammates Enough Context”Teammates load project context (CLAUDE.md, MCP servers, skills) but don’t inherit the lead’s conversation history. Include task-specific details in the spawn prompt.
6. Start with Research and Review
Section titled “6. Start with Research and Review”If you’re new to agent teams, start with tasks that have clear boundaries and don’t require writing code: reviewing a PR, researching a library, or investigating a bug.
7. Avoid File Conflicts
Section titled “7. Avoid File Conflicts”Two teammates editing the same file leads to overwrites. Break work so each teammate owns a different set of files.
8. Use Pass-by-Reference for Large Content
Section titled “8. Use Pass-by-Reference for Large Content”Never paste file content into prompts. Pass file paths and line ranges instead:
// Good: Pass by referenceprompt: "Read /path/to/file.log lines 1-200 and analyze for errors"
// Bad: Paste content into promptprompt: `Analyze this content: ${fileContent}`This is critical for the RLM pattern where chunks can be large. Analyzers should read files directly using the Read tool.