orchestrate

Use this skill when orchestrating multi-agent work at scale - research swarms, parallel feature builds, wave-based dispatch, build-review-fix pipelines, or any task requiring 3+ agents. Activates on mentions of swarm, parallel agents, multi-agent, orchestrate, fan-out, wave dispatch, research army, unleash, dispatch agents, or parallel work.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "orchestrate" with this command: npx skills add hyperb1iss/hyperskills/hyperb1iss-hyperskills-orchestrate

Multi-Agent Orchestration

Meta-orchestration patterns mined from 597+ real agent dispatches across production codebases. This skill tells you WHICH strategy to use, HOW to structure prompts, and WHEN to use background vs foreground.

Core principle: Choose the right orchestration strategy for the work, partition agents by independence, inject context to enable parallelism, and adapt review overhead to trust level.

Strategy Selection

digraph strategy_selection {
    rankdir=TB;
    "What type of work?" [shape=diamond];

    "Research / knowledge gathering" [shape=box];
    "Independent feature builds" [shape=box];
    "Sequential dependent tasks" [shape=box];
    "Same transformation across partitions" [shape=box];
    "Codebase audit / assessment" [shape=box];
    "Greenfield project kickoff" [shape=box];

    "Research Swarm" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];
    "Epic Parallel Build" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];
    "Sequential Pipeline" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];
    "Parallel Sweep" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];
    "Multi-Dimensional Audit" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];
    "Full Lifecycle" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];

    "What type of work?" -> "Research / knowledge gathering";
    "What type of work?" -> "Independent feature builds";
    "What type of work?" -> "Sequential dependent tasks";
    "What type of work?" -> "Same transformation across partitions";
    "What type of work?" -> "Codebase audit / assessment";
    "What type of work?" -> "Greenfield project kickoff";

    "Research / knowledge gathering" -> "Research Swarm";
    "Independent feature builds" -> "Epic Parallel Build";
    "Sequential dependent tasks" -> "Sequential Pipeline";
    "Same transformation across partitions" -> "Parallel Sweep";
    "Codebase audit / assessment" -> "Multi-Dimensional Audit";
    "Greenfield project kickoff" -> "Full Lifecycle";
}
StrategyWhenAgentsBackgroundKey Pattern
Research SwarmKnowledge gathering, docs, SOTA research10-60+Yes (100%)Fan-out, each writes own doc
Epic Parallel BuildPlan with independent epics/features20-60+Yes (90%+)Wave dispatch by subsystem
Sequential PipelineDependent tasks, shared files3-15No (0%)Implement -> Review -> Fix chain
Parallel SweepSame fix/transform across modules4-10No (0%)Partition by directory, fan-out
Multi-Dimensional AuditQuality gates, deep assessment6-9No (0%)Same code, different review lenses
Full LifecycleNew project from scratchAll aboveMixedResearch -> Plan -> Build -> Review -> Harden

Strategy 1: Research Swarm

Mass-deploy background agents to build a knowledge corpus. Each agent researches one topic and writes one markdown document. Zero dependencies between agents.

When to Use

  • Kicking off a new project (need SOTA for all technologies)
  • Building a skill/plugin (need comprehensive domain knowledge)
  • Technology evaluation (compare multiple options in parallel)

The Pattern

Phase 1: Deploy research army (ALL BACKGROUND)
    Wave 1 (10-20 agents): Core technology research
    Wave 2 (10-20 agents): Specialized topics, integrations
    Wave 3 (5-10 agents): Gap-filling based on early results

Phase 2: Monitor and supplement
    - Check completed docs as they arrive
    - Identify gaps, deploy targeted follow-up agents
    - Read completed research to inform remaining dispatches

Phase 3: Synthesize
    - Read all research docs (foreground)
    - Create architecture plans, design docs
    - Use Plan agent to synthesize findings

Prompt Template: Research Agent

Research [TECHNOLOGY] for [PROJECT]'s [USE CASE].

Create a comprehensive research doc at [OUTPUT_PATH]/[filename].md covering:

1. Latest [TECH] version and features (search "[TECH] 2026" or "[TECH] latest")
2. [Specific feature relevant to project]
3. [Another relevant feature]
4. [Integration patterns with other stack components]
5. [Performance characteristics]
6. [Known gotchas and limitations]
7. [Best practices for production use]
8. [Code examples for key patterns]

Include code examples where possible. Use WebSearch and WebFetch to get current docs.

Key rules:

  • Every agent gets an explicit output file path (no ambiguity)
  • Include search hints: "search [TECH] 2026" (agents need recency guidance)
  • Numbered coverage list (8-12 items) scopes the research precisely
  • ALL agents run in background -- no dependencies between research topics

Dispatch Cadence

  • 3-4 seconds between agent dispatches
  • Group into thematic waves of 10-20 agents
  • 15-25 minute gaps between waves for gap analysis

Strategy 2: Epic Parallel Build

Deploy background agents to implement independent features/epics simultaneously. Each agent builds one feature in its own directory/module. No two agents touch the same files.

When to Use

  • Implementation plan with 10+ independent tasks
  • Monorepo with isolated packages/modules
  • Sprint backlog with non-overlapping features

The Pattern

Phase 1: Scout (FOREGROUND)
    - Deploy one Explore agent to map the codebase
    - Identify dependency chains and independent workstreams
    - Group tasks by subsystem to prevent file conflicts

Phase 2: Deploy build army (ALL BACKGROUND)
    Wave 1: Infrastructure/foundation (Redis, DB, auth)
    Wave 2: Backend APIs (each in own module directory)
    Wave 3: Frontend pages (each in own route directory)
    Wave 4: Integrations (MCP servers, external services)
    Wave 5: DevOps (CI, Docker, deployment)
    Wave 6: Bug fixes from review findings

Phase 3: Monitor and coordinate
    - Check git status for completed commits
    - Handle git index.lock contention (expected with 30+ agents)
    - Deploy remaining tasks as agents complete
    - Track via Sibyl tasks or TodoWrite

Phase 4: Review and harden (FOREGROUND)
    - Run Codex/code-reviewer on completed work
    - Dispatch fix agents for critical findings
    - Integration testing

Prompt Template: Feature Build Agent

**Task: [DESCRIPTIVE TITLE]** (task\_[ID])

Work in /path/to/project/[SPECIFIC_DIRECTORY]

## Context

[What already exists. Reference specific files, patterns, infrastructure.]
[e.g., "Redis is available at `app.state.redis`", "Follow pattern from `src/auth/`"]

## Your Job

1. Create `src/path/to/module/` with:
   - `file.py` -- [Description]
   - `routes.py` -- [Description]
   - `models.py` -- [Schema definitions]

2. Implementation requirements:
   [Detailed spec with code snippets, Pydantic models, API contracts]

3. Tests:
   - Create `tests/test_module.py`
   - Cover: [specific test scenarios]

4. Integration:
   - Wire into [main app entry point]
   - Register routes at [path]

## Git

Commit with message: "feat([module]): [description]"
Only stage files YOU created. Check `git status` before committing.
Do NOT stage files from other agents.

Key rules:

  • Every agent gets its own directory scope -- NO OVERLAP
  • Provide existing patterns to follow ("Follow pattern from X")
  • Include infrastructure context ("Redis available at X")
  • Explicit git hygiene instructions (critical with 30+ parallel agents)
  • Task IDs for traceability

Git Coordination for Parallel Agents

When running 10+ agents concurrently:

  1. Expect index.lock contention -- agents will retry automatically
  2. Each agent commits only its own files -- prompt must say this explicitly
  3. No agent should run git add . -- only specific files
  4. Monitor with git log --oneline -20 periodically
  5. No agent should push -- orchestrator handles push after integration

Strategy 3: Sequential Pipeline

Execute dependent tasks one at a time with review gates. Each task builds on the previous task's output. Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development for the full pipeline.

When to Use

  • Tasks that modify shared files
  • Integration boundary work (JNI bridges, auth chains)
  • Review-then-fix cycles where each fix depends on review findings
  • Complex features where implementation order matters

The Pattern

For each task:
    1. Dispatch implementer (FOREGROUND)
    2. Dispatch spec reviewer (FOREGROUND)
    3. Dispatch code quality reviewer (FOREGROUND)
    4. Fix any issues found
    5. Move to next task

Trust Gradient (adapt over time):
    Early tasks:  Implement -> Spec Review -> Code Review (full ceremony)
    Middle tasks: Implement -> Spec Review (lighter)
    Late tasks:   Implement only (pattern proven, high confidence)

Trust Gradient

As the session progresses and patterns prove reliable, progressively lighten review overhead:

PhaseReview OverheadWhen
Full ceremonyImplement + Spec Review + Code ReviewFirst 3-4 tasks
StandardImplement + Spec ReviewTasks 5-8, or after patterns stabilize
LightImplement + quick spot-checkLate tasks with established patterns
Cost-optimizedUse model: "haiku" for reviewsFormulaic review passes

This is NOT cutting corners -- it's earned confidence. If a late task deviates from the pattern, escalate back to full ceremony.


Strategy 4: Parallel Sweep

Apply the same transformation across partitioned areas of the codebase. Every agent does the same TYPE of work but on different FILES.

When to Use

  • Lint/format fixes across modules
  • Type annotation additions across packages
  • Test writing for multiple modules
  • Documentation updates across components
  • UI polish across pages

The Pattern

Phase 1: Analyze the scope
    - Run the tool (ruff, ty, etc.) to get full issue list
    - Auto-fix what you can
    - Group remaining issues by module/directory

Phase 2: Fan-out fix agents (4-10 agents)
    - One agent per module/directory
    - Each gets: issue count by category, domain-specific guidance
    - All foreground (need to verify each completes)

Phase 3: Verify and repeat
    - Run the tool again to check remaining issues
    - If issues remain, dispatch another wave
    - Repeat until clean

Prompt Template: Module Fix Agent

Fix all [TOOL] issues in the [MODULE_NAME] directory ([PATH]).

Current issues ([COUNT] total):

- [RULE_CODE]: [description] ([count]) -- [domain-specific fix guidance]
- [RULE_CODE]: [description] ([count]) -- [domain-specific fix guidance]

Run `[TOOL_COMMAND] [PATH]` to see exact issues.

IMPORTANT for [DOMAIN] code:
[Domain-specific guidance, e.g., "GTK imports need GI.require_version() before gi.repository imports"]

After fixing, run `[TOOL_COMMAND] [PATH]` to verify zero issues remain.

Key rules:

  • Provide issue counts by category (not just "fix everything")
  • Include domain-specific guidance (agents need to know WHY patterns exist)
  • Partition by directory to prevent overlap
  • Run in waves: fix -> verify -> fix remaining -> verify

Strategy 5: Multi-Dimensional Audit

Deploy multiple reviewers to examine the same code from different angles simultaneously. Each reviewer has a different focus lens.

When to Use

  • Major feature complete, need comprehensive review
  • Pre-release quality gate
  • Security audit
  • Performance assessment

The Pattern

Dispatch 6 parallel reviewers (ALL FOREGROUND):
    1. Code quality & safety reviewer
    2. Integration correctness reviewer
    3. Spec completeness reviewer
    4. Test coverage reviewer
    5. Performance analyst
    6. Security auditor

Wait for all to complete, then:
    - Synthesize findings into prioritized action list
    - Dispatch targeted fix agents for critical issues
    - Re-review only the dimensions that had findings

Prompt Template: Dimension Reviewer

[DIMENSION] review of [COMPONENT] implementation.

**Files to review:**

- [file1.ext]
- [file2.ext]
- [file3.ext]

**Analyze:**

1. [Specific question for this dimension]
2. [Specific question for this dimension]
3. [Specific question for this dimension]

**Report format:**

- Findings: numbered list with severity (Critical/Important/Minor)
- Assessment: Approved / Needs Changes
- Recommendations: prioritized action items

Strategy 6: Full Lifecycle

For greenfield projects, combine all strategies in sequence:

Session 1: RESEARCH (Research Swarm)
    -> 30-60 background agents build knowledge corpus
    -> Architecture planning agents synthesize findings
    -> Output: docs/research/*.md + docs/plans/*.md

Session 2: BUILD (Epic Parallel Build)
    -> Scout agent maps what exists
    -> 30-60 background agents build features by epic
    -> Monitor, handle git contention, track completions
    -> Output: working codebase with commits

Session 3: ITERATE (Build-Review-Fix Pipeline)
    -> Code review agents assess work
    -> Fix agents address findings
    -> Deep audit agents (foreground) assess each subsystem
    -> Output: quality-assessed codebase

Session 4: HARDEN (Sequential Pipeline)
    -> Integration boundary reviews (foreground, sequential)
    -> Security fixes, race condition fixes
    -> Test infrastructure setup
    -> Output: production-ready codebase

Each session shifts orchestration strategy to match the work's nature. Parallel when possible, sequential when required.


Background vs Foreground Decision

digraph bg_fg {
    "What is the agent producing?" [shape=diamond];

    "Information (research, docs)" [shape=box];
    "Code modifications" [shape=box];

    "Does orchestrator need it NOW?" [shape=diamond];
    "BACKGROUND" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
    "FOREGROUND" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];

    "Does next task depend on this task's files?" [shape=diamond];
    "FOREGROUND (sequential)" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];
    "FOREGROUND (parallel)" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightyellow];

    "What is the agent producing?" -> "Information (research, docs)";
    "What is the agent producing?" -> "Code modifications";

    "Information (research, docs)" -> "Does orchestrator need it NOW?";
    "Does orchestrator need it NOW?" -> "FOREGROUND" [label="yes"];
    "Does orchestrator need it NOW?" -> "BACKGROUND" [label="no - synthesize later"];

    "Code modifications" -> "Does next task depend on this task's files?";
    "Does next task depend on this task's files?" -> "FOREGROUND (sequential)" [label="yes"];
    "Does next task depend on this task's files?" -> "FOREGROUND (parallel)" [label="no - different modules"];
}

Rules observed from 597+ dispatches:

  • Research agents with no immediate dependency -> BACKGROUND (100% of the time)
  • Code-writing agents -> FOREGROUND (even if parallel)
  • Review/validation gates -> FOREGROUND (blocks pipeline)
  • Sequential dependencies -> FOREGROUND, one at a time

Prompt Engineering Patterns

Pattern A: Role + Mission + Structure (Research)

You are researching [DOMAIN] to create comprehensive documentation for [PROJECT].

Your mission: Create an exhaustive reference document covering ALL [TOPIC] capabilities.

Cover these areas in depth:

1. **[Category]** -- specific items
2. **[Category]** -- specific items
   ...

Use WebSearch and WebFetch to find blog posts, GitHub repos, and official docs.

Pattern B: Task + Context + Files + Spec (Feature Build)

**Task: [TITLE]** (task\_[ID])

Work in /absolute/path/to/[directory]

## Context

[What exists, what to read, what infrastructure is available]

## Your Job

1. Create `path/to/file` with [description]
2. [Detailed implementation spec]
3. [Test requirements]
4. [Integration requirements]

## Git

Commit with: "feat([scope]): [message]"
Only stage YOUR files.

Pattern C: Review + Verify + Report (Audit)

Comprehensive audit of [SCOPE] for [DIMENSION].

Look for:

1. [Specific thing #1]
2. [Specific thing #2]
   ...
3. [Specific thing #10]

[Scope boundaries -- which directories/files]

Report format:

- Findings: numbered with severity
- Assessment: Pass / Needs Work
- Action items: prioritized

Pattern D: Issue + Location + Fix (Bug Fix)

**Task:** Fix [ISSUE] -- [SEVERITY]

**Problem:** [Description with file:line references]
**Location:** [Exact file path]

**Fix Required:**

1. [Specific change]
2. [Specific change]

**Verify:**

1. Run [command] to confirm fix
2. Run tests: [test command]

Context Injection: The Parallelism Enabler

Agents can work independently BECAUSE the orchestrator pre-loads them with all context they need. Without this, agents would need to explore first, serializing the work.

Always inject:

  • Absolute file paths (never relative)
  • Existing patterns to follow ("Follow pattern from src/auth/jwt.py")
  • Available infrastructure ("Redis at app.state.redis")
  • Design language/conventions ("SilkCircuit Neon palette")
  • Tool usage hints ("Use WebSearch to find...")
  • Git instructions ("Only stage YOUR files")

For parallel agents, duplicate shared context:

  • Copy the same context block into each agent's prompt
  • Explicit exclusion notes ("11-Sibyl is handled by another agent")
  • Shared utilities described identically

Monitoring Parallel Agents

When running 10+ background agents:

  1. Check periodically -- git log --oneline -20 for commits
  2. Read output files -- tail the agent output files for progress
  3. Track completions -- Use Sibyl tasks or TodoWrite
  4. Deploy gap-fillers -- As early agents complete, identify missing work
  5. Handle contention -- git index.lock is expected, agents retry automatically

Status Report Template

## Agent Swarm Status

**[N] agents deployed** | **[M] completed** | **[P] in progress**

### Completed:
- [Agent description] -- [Key result]
- [Agent description] -- [Key result]

### In Progress:
- [Agent description] -- [Status]

### Gaps Identified:
- [Missing area] -- deploying follow-up agent

Common Mistakes

DON'T: Dispatch agents that touch the same files -> merge conflicts DO: Partition by directory/module -- one agent per scope

DON'T: Run all agents foreground when they're independent -> sequential bottleneck DO: Use background for research, foreground for code that needs coordination

DON'T: Send 50 agents with vague "fix everything" prompts DO: Give each agent a specific scope, issue list, and domain guidance

DON'T: Skip the scout phase for build sprints DO: Always Explore first to map what exists and identify dependencies

DON'T: Keep full review ceremony for every task in a long session DO: Apply the trust gradient -- earn lighter reviews through consistency

DON'T: Let agents run git add . or git push DO: Explicit git hygiene in every build prompt

DON'T: Dispatch background agents for code that needs integration DO: Background is for research only. Code agents run foreground.


Integration with Other Skills

SkillUse WithWhen
superpowers:subagent-driven-developmentSequential PipelineSingle-task implement-review cycles
superpowers:dispatching-parallel-agentsParallel SweepIndependent bug fixes
superpowers:writing-plansFull LifecycleCreate the plan before Phase 2
superpowers:executing-plansSequential PipelineBatch execution in separate session
superpowers:brainstormingFull LifecycleBefore research phase
superpowers:requesting-code-reviewAll strategiesQuality gates between phases
superpowers:verification-before-completionAll strategiesFinal validation

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Research

research

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

tui-design

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

brainstorm

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review