Composes existing AlterLab skills into multi-agent agentic workflows using current Claude Code subagent and Claude Agent SDK orchestration patterns: parallel subagent fan-out, sequential pipelines, judge panels, adversarial verification, and loop-until-clean review cycles. Maps each pattern onto real skills (alterlab-research-pipeline, alterlab-deep-research, alterlab-citation-verifier, alterlab-paper-reviewer, alterlab-peer-review) with copyable delegation prompts, agent-definition frontmatter, and SDK query() snippets. Use when the request mentions multi-agent, subagents, agent team, parallel agents, orchestration, pipeline of skills, judge panel, adversarial verification, devil's advocate, loop until clean, chaining skills, dispatching agents, or composing skills into a workflow. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Der Befehl bleibt in einer Zeile. Scrollen Sie horizontal, um ihn vor dem Kopieren vollständig zu prüfen.
Sie bevorzugen eine lokale Kopie? Laden Sie die Dateien herunter, die SkillsMP derzeit vorliegen.
Datei-Explorer
4 Dateien
SKILL.md wird angezeigt
SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
alterlab-workflow-orchestration
description
Composes existing AlterLab skills into multi-agent agentic workflows using current Claude Code subagent and Claude Agent SDK orchestration patterns: parallel subagent fan-out, sequential pipelines, judge panels, adversarial verification, and loop-until-clean review cycles. Maps each pattern onto real skills (alterlab-research-pipeline, alterlab-deep-research, alterlab-citation-verifier, alterlab-paper-reviewer, alterlab-peer-review) with copyable delegation prompts, agent-definition frontmatter, and SDK query() snippets. Use when the request mentions multi-agent, subagents, agent team, parallel agents, orchestration, pipeline of skills, judge panel, adversarial verification, devil's advocate, loop until clean, chaining skills, dispatching agents, or composing skills into a workflow. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.
license
MIT
allowed-tools
Read Write Edit Bash
compatibility
Patterns grounded in Claude Code subagents + Claude Agent SDK (verified against code.claude.com docs, 2026-06-08); uses built-in Claude tools only; agent teams and fork mode are gated behind experimental env vars noted inline; no external API key required for the Claude Code patterns
Workflow Orchestration — Compose AlterLab Skills into Multi-Agent Workflows
This skill is the orchestration layer. It does not do research, write, or review
itself — it teaches how to wire the skills that do into agentic workflows
using Claude Code's native subagent machinery and the Claude Agent SDK. Pick a
pattern, point it at real AlterLab skills, copy the delegation prompt.
The five patterns below are the high-leverage shapes for academic work: fan-out
parallel investigation, a sequential pipeline, a judge panel,
adversarial verification, and a loop-until-clean review cycle. Each is
grounded in the current docs (see references/claude-orchestration-primitives.md
for the verified primitives, and references/composition-recipes.md for full
worked recipes with copyable prompts).
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when the user wants to:
Run several AlterLab skills at once over independent inputs (e.g. verify 4
bibliographies, or research 3 sub-questions in parallel) and merge the results
Chain skills into a pipeline where each stage hands off to the next
Get multiple independent perspectives on one artifact (a judge / reviewer panel)
Adversarially verify an output — one agent produces, a fresh agent tries to break it
Iterate a loop until a quality gate passes (e.g. re-review until zero unresolved comments)
Understand Claude Code subagents, agent teams, forks, or the Agent SDK well
enough to author their own academic orchestration
Does NOT Trigger
Scenario
Use Instead
The user wants the full research→write→review pipeline run for them
alterlab-research-pipeline (it already orchestrates the 9-stage flow)
The user wants original research / a cited report
alterlab-deep-research
The user wants one manuscript peer-reviewed
alterlab-paper-reviewer or alterlab-peer-review
The user wants citations existence-checked
alterlab-citation-verifier
The user asks about Claude API pricing / model ids / SDK billing
the claude-api skill
This skill is for how to compose; the named skills are what to compose.
If a single existing skill already does the job end to end, defer to it.
All claims below are verified against code.claude.com/docs on 2026-06-08. See
references/claude-orchestration-primitives.md for quotes and field tables.
Subagents are Markdown + YAML files in .claude/agents/ (project) or
~/.claude/agents/ (user). Only name and description are required;
optional fields include tools, disallowedTools, model
(sonnet/opus/haiku/full id/inherit), permissionMode, skills, and
background. Each subagent runs in its own context window and returns only
a summary to the main conversation. Claude auto-delegates by matching the task
to the subagent's description.
Subagents cannot spawn other subagents (no nesting). For nested delegation,
chain from the main conversation or use Skills. Built-in subagents: Explore
(read-only, Haiku), Plan (read-only), general-purpose (all tools).
Parallel fan-out: ask the main agent to run independent investigations "in
parallel using separate subagents"; results return and the main agent
synthesizes. Chaining: ask it to use subagent A, then pass results to
subagent B.
Background vs foreground: background subagents run concurrently and
auto-deny prompts; foreground blocks and passes prompts through.
Agent teams (experimental, CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1,
v2.1.32+) differ from subagents: teammates have independent contexts, a shared
task list, and message each other directly — ideal for adversarial debate.
Recommended size 3–5; higher token cost.
Forks (/fork, CLAUDE_CODE_FORK_SUBAGENT=1, v2.1.117+): a subagent that
inherits the full conversation instead of starting fresh — cheap because it
reuses the parent prompt cache.
Claude Agent SDK (Python claude-agent-sdk, TypeScript
@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk) packages the same agent loop programmatically
via query(...) with ClaudeAgentOptions/options; define subagents through
the agents option (AgentDefinition), and capture/resume session_id for
multi-turn state. Use it to script the patterns below in CI or batch jobs.
The Five Patterns
1. Parallel fan-out (map)
When N inputs are independent, dispatch one worker per input and merge. Classic
academic uses: verify several bibliographies at once, or research distinct
sub-questions concurrently.
I have 4 reference lists (one per chapter). Verify them in parallel using
separate subagents — each subagent runs the alterlab-citation-verifier skill
on one list — then merge the per-entry verdicts into one table flagging every
TF/IH/SH problem across all four chapters.
Why subagents: each verification floods context with API lookups you won't reuse;
isolating each in its own window keeps the main conversation clean. Best when
paths don't depend on each other (the docs' stated condition for parallel
research). See recipe P1 in references/composition-recipes.md.
2. Sequential pipeline (chain)
Stage outputs feed the next stage. The canonical academic chain — research →
write → integrity-check → review → revise — is already packaged as
alterlab-research-pipeline; prefer that skill rather than rebuilding it.
Use this pattern when you need a custom chain it doesn't cover, e.g.
deep-research → citation-verifier → peer-review on an externally supplied draft.
Use the alterlab-deep-research skill to produce a lit-review synthesis on X,
then chain its bibliography into alterlab-citation-verifier to existence-check
every entry, then pass the verified draft to alterlab-peer-review for a
section-by-section critique. Carry forward only each stage's summary.
See recipe P2 in references/composition-recipes.md.
3. Judge panel (independent multi-perspective)
Several independent reviewers each apply a different lens to one artifact,
then a synthesizer reconciles. alterlab-paper-reviewer already simulates a
5-reviewer panel internally; use this pattern when you want the panelists to be
genuinely separate agents (separate contexts, no cross-contamination) — e.g.
a methodology reviewer, a domain reviewer, and a reproducibility reviewer that
must not anchor on each other.
Spawn three independent reviewer subagents on this manuscript: one on
methodology, one on domain contribution, one on reproducibility/statistics.
Each works from the paper alone and reports independently; then synthesize a
single editorial decision noting where they agree and disagree.
Independence is the point — running them in one context lets the first opinion
anchor the rest. See recipe P3 in references/composition-recipes.md.
4. Adversarial verification (produce → break)
One agent produces a claim or result; a fresh agent is tasked solely with
disproving it. This is the highest-value pattern for research integrity. The
docs' competing-hypotheses agent-team example is the reference implementation:
teammates "talk to each other to try to disprove each other's theories, like a
scientific debate."
Take the three headline claims in my draft. For each, spawn a skeptic subagent
whose only job is to find disconfirming evidence and check the supporting
citation actually supports the claim (via alterlab-citation-verifier). Report
any claim that survives and any that breaks.
For sustained debate where the skeptics challenge each other, escalate to an
agent team (the env var above). See recipe P4 in references/composition-recipes.md.
5. Loop until clean (validator → fix → repeat)
Iterate a fix-and-recheck cycle until a quality gate passes — bounded by a turn
cap so it terminates. Academic use: revise → re-review until zero unresolved
reviewer comments, or verify → fix → re-verify until the bibliography is 100%
resolvable.
Run a revision loop: alterlab-paper-reviewer produces comments; revise the
draft to address them; re-review only the previously-flagged items; repeat
until no unresolved comments remain or after at most 3 rounds, then stop and
report the residual issues.
Always set an explicit stop condition AND a max-iteration cap — open loops burn
context and tokens. See recipe P5 in references/composition-recipes.md.
Choosing a Mechanism
Need
Mechanism
Why
Isolate verbose output, get a summary back
Subagent
Own context window; only summary returns
Independent investigations, no cross-talk
Parallel subagents
Each explores alone; main agent synthesizes
Side task that needs full current context
Fork (/fork)
Inherits conversation; reuses prompt cache
Workers must debate / challenge each other
Agent team (experimental)
Shared task list + direct messaging
Script the workflow in CI / batch
Agent SDK
query() + agents option, programmatic
It's already one packaged flow
Existing skill
Don't rebuild alterlab-research-pipeline
Match freedom to fragility: open-ended exploration gets prose prompts; fragile
multi-step sequences get explicit, ordered instructions and a stop condition.
Resources
references/claude-orchestration-primitives.md — verified Claude Code subagent
agent-team + fork + Agent SDK primitives, with field tables and doc-sourced
quotes (load when you need exact frontmatter fields, env vars, or version gates)
references/composition-recipes.md — five full worked recipes (P1–P5) mapping
each pattern onto real AlterLab skills, with copyable delegation prompts,
subagent-definition frontmatter, and a Python Agent SDK query() example
(load when you need a complete, ready-to-run composition)
