supervisor-orchestrator

name	supervisor-orchestrator
description	Supervisor-orchestrator pattern: Orchestrator controls task planning and delegation.

---

name: "supervisor-orchestrator" description: "Supervisor-orchestrator pattern: Orchestrator controls task planning and delegation to specialized agents with full decomposition logic."

Supervisor Orchestrator Pattern

[!IMPORTANT] When to use: When an orchestrator needs to plan, decompose, and coordinate multiple sub-agents — with routing logic built into the orchestrator itself.

Decision Tree Path

Does the task require multiple specialized capabilities?
├── YES
│   └── Do you need a supervisor to route and coordinate sub-agents?
│       ├── NO, sub-agents need autonomy with orchestrator control?
│       │   └── YES → Supervisor Orchestrator (you're here)
│       └── YES, just routing needed?
│           └── YES → supervisor-delegation
└── NO → single-agent

When to Choose

✅ Use Orchestrator When	❌ Avoid When
Task decomposition is complex/unpredictable	Task has simple, fixed routing
Orchestrator needs fine-grained control over execution	Multi-level hierarchy needed
Sub-agents need to work on shared artifacts/data	Simple parallel execution suffices
You need conditional branching based on intermediate results

Use Cases

• Complex research pipelines (search → analyze → compare → report)
• Software architecture generation (requirements → design → code → test)
• Multi-step negotiations (analyze → propose → counter → finalize)
• Document authoring pipelines (outline → research → draft → revise)

Example Architecture

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│              Orchestrator                   │
│  ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ • Task decomposition                  │  │
│  │ • Step sequencing                     │  │
│  │ • Conditional branching               │  │
│  │ • Result synthesis                    │  │
│  └───────────────────────────────────────┘  │
└──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┘
                   │
     ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
     ▼             ▼             ▼
┌────────┐   ┌────────┐   ┌────────┐
│Agent A │◄──│Agent B │──►│Agent C │
│(Search)│   │(Analyze)   │(Write) │
└────────┘   └────────┘   └────────┘
     │             │             │
     └─────────────┼─────────────┘
                   ▼
              Shared Context
              (Artifacts, State)

Orchestrator Prompt Pattern

You are an orchestrator controlling a team of specialized agents.

Task: {user_task}

Available agents:
- search_agent: Web search, fact retrieval
- analysis_agent: Data analysis, pattern recognition  
- writing_agent: Content creation, editing

Orchestrator responsibilities:
1. Decompose the task into steps
2. Assign each step to the appropriate agent
3. Manage shared state between agents
4. Handle errors and retries
5. Synthesize final output

Always maintain shared context between agents.

Key Considerations

Include in Your Decision

1. Orchestrator sophistication — Can it reliably decompose and sequence?
2. Shared state management — How will agents share context/artifacts?
3. Error handling — What happens when an agent fails mid-sequence?
4. Conditional logic — Does the flow need branching based on results?

Shared State Options

Approach	Use When
Central artifact (file/DB)	Agents produce/consume structured outputs
Message passing	Real-time coordination needed
Orchestrator intermediates	Supervisor holds all state, agents stateless

Anti-Patterns

Mistake	Why It's Bad
Over-centralizing in orchestrator	Bottleneck, single point of failure
No shared state mechanism	Agents work in isolation, results don't integrate
Rigid step sequencing	Can't adapt to intermediate results
Orchestrator does work itself	Defeats purpose of delegation

Scaling Up: Adding Autonomy

Need multiple levels of supervisory control?
├── YES → hierarchical-supervisor
└── NO, but agents should operate independently?
    └── YES → Consider parallel-execution for independent branches

Scaling Down

Is orchestration actually simpler than expected?
├── YES, just routing based on type?
│   └── YES → supervisor-delegation
├── YES, just parallel independent tasks?
│   └── YES → parallel-execution
└── YES, one LLM can handle it?
    └── YES → single-agent

Quick Reference

Factor	Supervisor Orchestrator
Latency	High (decomposition + coordination + execution)
Cost	Higher (orchestrator + agents + state management)
Complexity	High
Reliability	Orchestrator critical; agents can be isolated
Best for	Complex multi-step tasks with shared state

---

Pattern ID: supervisor-orchestrator | AGEM-compatible