smithery.ai

Agent Orchestration Patterns

Multi-agent coordination patterns for building effective AI teams

Installation

$ npx skills add https://smithery.ai

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery.ai · top by installs.

npx skills add https://smithery.ai

Browse all from smithery.ai

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Version1.0.0
LicenseMIT
Declared agents claude-code

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 12,901 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 101 B

History

  1. First recorded snapshot · 1 installs

SKILL.md

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."