| name | orchestrate |
| description | Orchestrate development work through sub-agents using td for state. Use when given a td task ID, text idea, markdown plan, or td epic to execute through plan-implement-review loops, or when asked to triage the pending review queue. |
Orchestrate
Run multi-step development work through sub-agents, with td as the durable state store.
This is guidance, not a protocol. You know your tools and the shape of the work in front of you better than this file does. Optimize for efficiency and correctness — not for looking like you followed steps.
The one rule that isn't negotiable: every story gets reviewed by something other than what wrote it, before it closes. Everything on the rest of this page is a default you should feel free to beat.
Classify input
| Input | Detect | Bootstrap |
|---|
| td task | td-[a-f0-9]+ | td show <id> + td context <id>, then implement |
| td epic / multiple IDs | Multiple td IDs or user says "epic" | td show each, plan execution order |
| Text idea | No td ID, plain text | Create td task(s), then implement |
| Markdown plan | Structured markdown with steps | Convert to td tasks, then implement |
| "review what's pending" | No target; user wants the queue triaged | td reviewable, then run the review loop below |
If the work needs more than one task, create an epic and link the sub-tasks to it. td next and td critical-path are the fastest way to pick an order when the dependency graph isn't obvious.
Your role
You hold the plan, keep state in td, and spend your context on coordination rather than on code.
- Planning: do it yourself when you already have the context. Spawning a planner to rediscover what you just read burns a whole window for nothing. Delegate planning when the area is large or unfamiliar.
- Implementation: delegate by default. It protects your context and it's what makes the review independent. Small mechanical edits you've already diagnosed are fine to do directly.
- Review: delegate, always. Never review code you wrote.
Batching is your call
How you slice work across agents is the main lever you have on both speed and quality. Use it. Nobody is counting agents.
Implementation. Group stories that touch the same files, share a design decision, or are small enough that a separate agent costs more than it saves. Split what's genuinely independent so it can run concurrently. The one hard constraint: don't run parallel agents over overlapping files — serialize them, or give each its own worktree.
Review. Batch these the same way. One reviewer over a coherent feature usually finds more than several reviewers over the same work in fragments, because it sees the integrated result and can spot the seams. Narrow the batch when a missed finding is expensive: security-sensitive changes, destructive migrations, production deploys, anything public-facing.
A batch review still has to actually cover every story in it. Name the stories and the diff range in the reviewer's prompt so "reviewed" means someone read that story's changes, not that it rode along inside a batch.
Rejections. Fix and re-review, but converge. One review plus a fix cycle usually gets there; past that, land the P0 findings and file the rest as follow-up tasks rather than looping.
Verification without repetition
Treat verification as evidence about a specific candidate, not as a ritual at every agent boundary.
Verify at the narrowest useful scope while work is moving; run broad gates once on the integrated candidate.
- Implementers run focused tests for the behavior they changed. They run formatting or linting only when their edits may require it.
- Parallel work streams do not each run the repository-wide suite. After their changes are integrated, one owner runs the broad local gates once.
- Reviewers may rely on recorded green results. They inspect the diff and run additional tests only to investigate a risk, reproduce a finding, or cover behavior the existing evidence does not establish.
- The orchestrator does not automatically rerun a command merely because control returned from a sub-agent.
- Before final user handoff, the required full suite, lint/format gates, and CI must be green for the final integrated candidate.
Verification remains valid until something relevant changes. Rerun a gate when:
- code covered by that gate changed after it ran;
- dependencies, generated files, build configuration, or relevant environment changed;
- integration introduced interactions the focused tests did not cover;
- the previous run was incomplete, failed, or cannot be tied to the current candidate.
Do not invalidate proof merely because another agent starts, finishes, reviews, or hands work back.
Record reusable evidence in the task or handoff: the exact command, result, and commit or tree state it covered. A receiving agent should read that evidence before deciding what still needs to run.
Reviewing
Whether you are reviewing this loop's own output or triaging a queue someone else filled (td reviewable), the shape is the same: gather, review in parallel, act sequentially.
Give a reviewer the contract, not just the diff — the acceptance criteria, the plan or design doc the work was built against, and the quality gates. A reviewer with only the diff can tell you the code is coherent; one with the contract can tell you it is wrong. Ask it to falsify, not to admire.
Reviewers report a verdict, and you act on it:
| Verdict | What you do |
|---|
| Clean | Approve (see Closing tasks) |
| Obvious fix | Fix it now — file the bug task first so it's tracked, fix, re-review |
| Needs tests | File a task naming exactly what needs testing and why |
| Bigger issue | File a task: what's wrong, where, suggested approach, context from the review |
| Unclear | Ask the user. Don't approve or reject code nobody understands |
Every task you file has to survive a cold pickup — enough context that an agent with none of this conversation can act on it. Vague tasks get skipped or produce useless output.
Parallelize independent reviews; serialize the acting, so two fixes don't collide in the same file. Once the fixes land, scan for in-progress tasks they resolved and close them rather than leaving them stale.
A reviewer sub-agent prompt wants: task ids and repo path, the diff range, the contract, existing verification evidence, any gates the reviewer specifically owns, and an instruction to report a verdict per the table above with a concrete reproduction for each finding. Reviewers should not rerun the full suite by default; ask them to add targeted verification when the evidence leaves a concrete risk uncovered. A finding without a reproduction is not a finding.
Working the tools well
- Spawn independent agents in one message so they run concurrently instead of in sequence.
- Reuse an agent that already has the context for its own follow-up fixes rather than spawning a fresh one that has to re-derive everything.
- Size prompts to the job. Implementers need real context; reviewers mostly need the diff, the acceptance criteria, and the quality gates. Short reviewer prompts are cheaper and no worse.
- Prefix each sub-agent prompt with its role, the td task IDs, the repo path, a distinct
TD_CONTEXT_ID to export, and an instruction to td log progress. Roles are labels, not a fixed roster — implementer, reviewer, planner, tester, whatever the work actually needs. The context id is what lets a reviewer close its own verdict (see Closing tasks).
- Tell implementers which focused gates they own and which broad gates the integration owner will run. Supplying a command is not an instruction to run it redundantly; name when it should run.
- Re-read td state between steps instead of carrying it in your head. If the user adds tasks mid-flight, re-read the epic and slot them into the dependency graph.
- Every commit references a td task id:
feat|fix|chore: <summary> (td-XXXXXX).
- If blocked,
td log --blocker and move to the next unblocked task.
- Feedback and verdicts go through
td log / td approve / td reject, so state survives compaction.
The td CLI is self-documenting — td usage, td <command> --help. Look there rather than guessing at flags.
Closing tasks
td's default trusted mode wants an independent review, and its flags exist so the recorded history matches what actually happened. Pick by who did what — not by which flag gets past the check:
td approve <id> --reason "..."
td approve <id> --reason "..."
td approve <id> --reviewed-by "reviewer sub-agent"
td approve <id> --self-review --reason "..."
Give each sub-agent its own TD_CONTEXT_ID (reviewer-<taskid>, impl-<taskid>) before it runs any td command, and let the reviewer close its own findings or record them with td approve --record-only --reason "...". That makes the independence mechanically verified instead of asserted, and it costs one environment variable. Prefer it.
--reviewed-by is the fallback when that isn't available — a sub-agent sharing your session still did the review, and naming it is more honest than claiming a self-review you did not perform. Identify the reviewer however is useful and true: "code-reviewer sub-agent", "sub-agent 2 (adversarial review)", or just "sub-agent". td does not verify the name; it is an attestation.
If you find yourself blocked at td approve because you are the implementer-of-record, that is the signal to pick one of the two honest paths — not to leave the story sitting in in_review. A story that is implemented, reviewed, and green should not need the user to close it by hand.
What's not okay: naming a reviewer that did not review (worse than an honest --self-review, because it reads as independent in the audit trail), spinning up a throwaway session to make a review look independent, or approving work nobody read. If a project pins review_policy_mode=delegated|strict, self-review is blocked by design — record the verdict with td log and let another session close.
See td approve --help and docs/multi-agent-sessions.md in the td repo for the full mode table.
Proof
Capture proof by default — it's what makes "done" checkable later. Decide per task whether it earns its keep:
- Worth it: UI changes (screenshot), anything where the test suite doesn't demonstrate the actual user-visible outcome, infra/deploy work, bug fixes where the repro matters.
- Skip it: well-tested code with no UI surface and no behavior a test doesn't already assert. Passing tests recorded in the td log are the proof. Say so rather than manufacturing a ceremonial proof task.
When you do capture it, put it in td rather than only in chat: update the implementation task or epic with the result, and create a Proof: <thing proved> child task with the proof label. Name the exact artifact up front — not "capture proof" but "screenshot of ActivityPanel showing 3 block types at /tmp/rich-blocks-proof.png" or "output of go test ./internal/modules/planner/...". Vague proof tasks get skipped or produce useless output.
If the user explicitly asks to prove or verify work, proof is part of completion, not an optional follow-up.
Scaling
Match the gates to the stakes. Personal and LAN-only work can run broad batches and light gates. Public, multi-user, security-sensitive, or production work deserves narrower batches and stronger ones. Don't spend a security-grade process on a personal script, and don't ship a payments change on a personal-script process.
On compaction / handoff
td is the memory, so write to it before you need it: td log progress and td log --decision the reasoning as you go. A decision recorded after compaction is a decision reconstructed.
Before context runs out or if pausing:
td handoff <current-task-id> \
--done "completed tasks and outcomes" \
--remaining "pending tasks in order" \
--decision "key decisions made" \
--uncertain "open questions"
Be honest in --done; "mostly working" is not done, and the next session pays for the difference. For work spanning several tasks, td ws start "<name>" / td ws tag <ids> / td ws handoff captures the whole set at once.
Then tell the user: "Resume with /orchestrate td-<id>."
Include this in every sub-agent prompt: "If your context is compacted, read td state with td context <id> and continue from there."
