supervisor-delegation

name	supervisor-delegation
description	Supervisor delegation pattern: One supervisor LLM routes tasks to specialized sub-agents. Best for multi-capability routing.

Supervisor Delegation Pattern

[!IMPORTANT] When to use: When one supervisor LLM routes to multiple specialized LLMs. Best for tasks with distinct capability requirements.

Decision Tree Path

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

When to Choose

✅ Use Supervisor Delegation When	❌ Avoid When
Task has distinct phases needing different expertise	Sub-agents need to collaborate on shared context
You want centralized control/logic in supervisor	Task decomposition is complex/unpredictable
Sub-agents are largely independent workers	You need multi-level handoffs

Use Cases

• Customer support routing (billing → tech → refunds)
• Multi-document processing (analyze → summarize → respond)
• Research pipelines (search → extract → synthesize)
• Code review with multiple specialties (security → performance → style)

Example Architecture

           ┌─────────────┐
           │  Supervisor │ ← Routes based on task type
           │     LLM     │
           └──────┬──────┘
                  │
       ┌──────────┼──────────┐
       ▼          ▼          ▼
  ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐
  │ Code   │ │ Legal  │ │Research│
  │ Expert │ │ Expert │ │ Expert │
  └────────┘ └────────┘ └────────┘
       │          │          │
       └──────────┼──────────┘
                  ▼
            Synthesize

Supervisor Prompt Pattern

You are a supervisor router. Given a user task:
1. Identify the required capabilities
2. Route to the appropriate specialist agent
3. Synthesize results if multiple agents respond

Agents available:
- code_expert: Python, JavaScript, debugging
- legal_expert: contracts, compliance, privacy
- research_expert: web search, citations, analysis

Respond with your routing decision and reasoning.

Key Considerations

Include in Your Decision

1. Supervisor capability — Does the supervisor LLM reliably understand routing?
2. Sub-agent scope — Are sub-agents clearly defined with limited scope?
3. Handoff clarity — Is it clear how sub-agents return results to supervisor?
4. Error boundaries — Does one sub-agent failure affect others?

Specialist Definition Best Practices

Aspect	Recommendation
Scope	Narrow, well-defined capabilities
Interface	Consistent input/output format
Fallback	Default response if task doesn't fit specialty
Independence	Each specialist should be independently usable

Anti-Patterns

Mistake	Why It's Bad
Vague specialist definitions	Supervisor can't route reliably
Overloading supervisor	Supervisor becomes a bottleneck
No synthesis layer	User gets fragmented outputs
Sub-agents that need shared context	Creates coordination nightmares

Scaling Up: Multi-Level Routing

Need multiple levels of supervision?
├── YES → hierarchical-supervisor
│       (Supervisor → Supervisor → Workers)
└── NO, but agents need to collaborate?
    └── YES → supervisor-orchestrator

Scaling Down

Is the task actually simpler than expected?
├── YES, just parallel independent tasks?
│   └── YES → parallel-execution
└── YES, one LLM can handle it?
    └── YES → single-agent

Quick Reference

Factor	Supervisor Delegation
Latency	Medium (routing + sub-agent)
Cost	Medium (supervisor + specialists)
Complexity	Moderate
Reliability	Sub-agents isolated, supervisor is single point
Best for	Multi-capability routing with central control

---

Pattern ID: supervisor-delegation | AGEM-compatible