Parallel execution pattern: Multiple agents work simultaneously on independent sub-tasks. Best for embarrassingly parallel workloads.
Installation
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.
You are a dispatcher for parallel execution.
Task: {user_task}
1. Identify N independent subtasks
2. Launch all subtasks simultaneously
3. Wait for all completions
4. Aggregate results
Subtasks identified: {list}
Key Considerations
Include in Your Decision
True independence — Can any subtask fail without affecting others?
Result aggregation — How will results be combined?
Load balancing — Are subtasks similar in complexity?
Error handling — Partial failure vs. total failure?
Independence Checklist
Question
If NO, Use Another Pattern
Do subtasks need shared state?
❌ → supervisor-orchestrator
Do subtasks depend on each other's output?
❌ → supervisor-orchestrator
Is there an execution order requirement?
❌ → supervisor-orchestrator
Do subtasks need to collaborate?
❌ → supervisor-orchestrator
Anti-Patterns
Mistake
Why It's Bad
Faking independence
Race conditions, corrupted outputs
No aggregation plan
Results pile up without synthesis
Uneven workload
Some agents idle, others overwhelmed
Ignoring partial failures
Incomplete results, wasted compute
Aggregation Strategies
Strategy
Use When
Simple concatenation
Results are independent, list format OK
Weighted scoring
Some results more important than others
Consensus voting
Multiple perspectives on same question
Hierarchical synthesis
Results themselves need synthesis
Scaling Up: Adding Dependencies
Need some coordination between parallel tasks?
├── YES, light handoffs?
│ └── YES → supervisor-orchestrator (light version)
└── YES, hierarchical control?
└── YES → hierarchical-supervisor
Scaling Down
Is parallelism actually overkill?
├── YES, one LLM can handle it?
│ └── YES → single-agent
└── YES, simple routing by type?
└── YES → supervisor-delegation