hierarchical-supervisor

name	hierarchical-supervisor
description	Hierarchical supervisor pattern: Multi-level supervisor chains where supervisors delegate to supervisors who delegate to workers.

Hierarchical Supervisor Pattern

[!IMPORTANT] When to use: When you need multiple levels of supervisory control — a supervisor delegates to supervisors who manage worker agents.

Decision Tree Path

Does the task require multiple specialized capabilities?
├── YES
│   └── Do you need multiple levels of supervisory control?
│       ├── YES → Hierarchical Supervisor (you're here)
│       └── NO, single level of control?
│           ├── YES, centralized routing?
│           │   └── YES → supervisor-delegation
│           └── YES, orchestrator control?
│               └── YES → supervisor-orchestrator
└── NO → single-agent

When to Choose

✅ Use Hierarchical When	❌ Avoid When
Large organization-scale tasks	Simple routing with fixed paths
Clear domain/team boundaries needing management	Shallow task decomposition
Middle managers needed for domain expertise	Single supervisor suffices
Coordination at multiple abstraction levels	Overhead exceeds benefit

Use Cases

• Enterprise automation (VP → Manager → Team Lead → Worker)
• Multi-domain research (Research Director → Domain Leads → Specialists)
• Complex manufacturing (Plant Manager → Line Supervisors → Workers)
• Large-scale content production (Editor → Section Editors → Writers)

Example Architecture

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Executive Supervisor                  │
│              (High-level task understanding)            │
└─────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────┘
                              │
         ┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐
         ▼                   ▼                   ▼
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│  Domain Lead A  │ │  Domain Lead B  │ │  Domain Lead C  │
│ (Technical Mgmt)│ │ (Creative Mgmt) │ │ (Legal Mgmt)    │
└────────┬────────┘ └────────┬────────┘ └────────┬────────┘
         │                   │                   │
    ┌────┴────┐        ┌────┴────┐        ┌────┴────┐
    ▼    ▼    ▼        ▼    ▼    ▼        ▼    ▼    ▼
┌──── ┌──── ┌──── ┌──── ┌──── ┌──── ┌──── ┌──── ┌────
│Wrkr │Wrkr │Wrkr │Wrkr │Wrkr │Wrkr │Wrkr │Wrkr │Wrkr
└──── └──── └──── └──── └──── └──── └──── └──── └────

Level Definitions

Level	Role	Responsibility
Executive	Task interpretation	Convert user request to domain tasks
Domain Lead	Domain coordination	Manage specialists within domain
Specialist	Execution	Perform actual work

Key Considerations

Include in Your Decision

1. Level count — How many levels truly needed? (Prefer ≤3)
2. Handoff clarity — Clear contracts between levels
3. Information loss — Does context survive multi-level handoffs?
4. Latency — Each level adds latency

Design Principles

Principle	Why It Matters
3 levels max	More adds latency, loses context
Semantic handoffs	Each level adds its own interpretation
Clear domain boundaries	Reduces cross-level confusion
Aggregated feedback	Lower levels report up; upper levels synthesize

Anti-Patterns

Mistake	Why It's Bad
Too many levels	Context collapse, latency explosion
Unclear level responsibilities	Work falls through cracks
Top does work	Middle management is overhead
Bottom reports directly to top	Bypasses domain expertise

Scaling Down

Is hierarchy actually simpler than expected?
├── NO, just single level routing?
│   └── YES → supervisor-delegation
├── NO, just orchestration control?
│   └── YES → supervisor-orchestrator
└── Task is embarrassingly parallel?
    └── YES → parallel-execution

Quick Reference

Factor	Hierarchical Supervisor
Latency	Highest (multiple levels)
Cost	Highest (multiple supervisors)
Complexity	Very High
Reliability	Distributed; domain leads isolate failures
Best for	Large-scale multi-domain tasks

---

Pattern ID: hierarchical-supervisor | AGEM-compatible