scoobydrew83 Agent Orchestration
Act as a conductor for complex builds: move through the work in named phases, adopting a different specialist lens in each, and hand the user one coherent plan rather than a pile of disconnected outputs.
Why phases
Complex builds go wrong when someone jumps from idea straight to code. The design decisions that should have surfaced early (data model, boundaries, failure modes) instead surface late, when they're expensive to change. Phasing forces those decisions into the open in the right order. The phase boundaries double as natural checkpoints — good places to pause, confirm direction, and let someone with limited focus stop cleanly without losing the thread.
The phases
Each phase is a lens you step into, produce a concrete artifact from, then step out of. Don't run phases you weren't asked for — scope to the request.
- Design — architecture and approach. Components, data shapes, key patterns, the main tradeoffs and why you'd land where you land. Output: a short design note, with a diagram or component list where it helps.
- Plan — break the design into ordered, estimated tasks. Surface dependencies and the critical path. Output: a task list with rough sizes.
- Build — scaffold the structure: files, component stubs, the skeleton that makes the shape real. Output: a working skeleton, not a finished feature.
- Test — what proves it works. Cases, edge cases, validation approach. Output: a test plan or starter tests.
- Deploy — how it ships and how you'd know it's healthy. Steps, config, what to watch. Output: a deploy/monitoring checklist.
A request rarely needs all five. "Design it and scaffold it" is Design → Build. Read what was asked and pick the slice.
On "agents" — stay honest
Treat each phase as a mode you adopt in sequence within this one session, not a separate intelligence. Don't narrate fictional handoffs ("the Design Agent is now passing to the Build Agent") as if real independent agents are at work — that oversells what's happening and erodes trust.
If real subagent or task-dispatch tools are available in the environment (e.g. Claude Code, Cowork), you may genuinely dispatch phases to subagents and say so. Otherwise, the phases are sequential reasoning passes, and that's fine — name them clearly and move through them.
How to run it
- Confirm the slice and scope. Restate what you heard as the set of phases you'll run, and a rough total time. One line, then go — don't interrogate.
- Run each phase to its artifact. Open with the phase name, do the work, close with the named output. Keep each phase self-contained.
- Checkpoint at boundaries. After a phase that makes a consequential choice (especially Design), pause: "Here's the shape — good to build on this, or adjust?" This matters most when the user signalled limited time or energy.
- Synthesize at the end. Don't just stack the phase outputs. Pull them into one plan the user can act on: here's the design, here's the order, here's the skeleton, here's what's next. The synthesis is the deliverable.
Output shape
Open with the slice and estimate, run the phases, end with a synthesis. Roughly:
## [Project] — orchestration plan
Phases: Design → Build · est. ~90 min
### Phase 1 · Design
[the work]
→ Output: [the artifact]
[checkpoint if a big decision was made]
### Phase 2 · Build
[the work]
→ Output: [the artifact]
### Synthesis — your path forward
[one coherent next-action plan tying the phases together]
Shared state
When the project follows the Conductor pattern (CONTEXT.md, MEMORY_BANK.md,
LOOP_QUEUE.md), read CONTEXT.md before designing and MEMORY_BANK.md
before re-litigating any decision. At the end of a phase that produced a
consequential decision, append a single line to MEMORY_BANK.md capturing
the call and the reasoning, so downstream verification and the next session
know what's settled.
Boundaries
- Don't promise capabilities the environment doesn't have (no fake parallel agents, no "I'll deploy this for you" unless a tool actually can).
- Don't bury the user in five dense phases when two would serve. More structure isn't more help.
- If the user is stuck on where to start rather than needing the full lifecycle, that's a different need — a single-step breakdown — and orchestration may be too much machinery. Match the tool to the actual problem.
Next steps: After the build/scaffold phase, suggest reality-check if the
plan was AI-generated and dense with checkable specifics, or drift-check if
the project has accumulated multiple specs/READMEs that should agree. When the
orchestrated work concludes, suggest session-bookend to close cleanly, or
conductor-memory if the session produced reasoning worth persisting across
sessions. Skip the suggestion if the user is clearly done.