| name | agentic-sequential |
| description | Sequential workflow pattern for deterministic, fixed-path tasks. Use when solution steps are known upfront and follow a stable repeatable sequence. |
name: "agentic-sequential"
description: "Sequential workflow pattern for deterministic, fixed-path agentic tasks. Use when solution steps are known upfront and the process follows a stable, repeatable sequence."
Agentic Sequential Workflow Pattern
[!TIP]
TL;DR: Use this pattern when the full step-by-step process is known before execution. Best for deterministic workflows like invoice processing, employee onboarding, or data pipelines.
Key Principle: "If the process is deterministic, the agent should execute — not decide."
Pattern Overview
The sequential workflow pattern handles tasks with a known solution path. The agent follows explicit steps in order, passing outputs from one stage to the next until completion.
┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐
│ Step 1 │───▶│ Step 2 │───▶│ Step 3 │───▶│ Step N │
│ Output │ │ Output │ │ Output │ │ Final │
└─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘
Decision Gate
When to use: Apply this pattern when the answer to Question 1 is YES:
- "Is the solution path known in advance?"
Good fit examples:
- Invoice processing: extract fields → validate → store → confirm
- Employee onboarding: create accounts → send welcome email → assign manager → schedule orientation
- Document processing: parse → extract → transform → load
Critical Design Choice
| What to use | Where to use it |
|---|
| LLM/Agent | Interpretation, generation, complex decisions |
| Deterministic code | Routing, data transformation, storage, validation |
Rationale: This separation keeps systems fast, predictable, and cost-efficient. The agent handles ambiguity; code handles repetition.
Failure Mode: Over-Engineering
The main failure signal is adding ReAct-style reasoning where every step is already defined.
❌ Over-Engineered Example
Agent decides: "Now I should validate the email format..."
Agent decides: "Now I should check if the email exists..."
Agent decides: "Now I should send the welcome..."
✅ Correct Approach
for step in ["validate_email", "check_existence", "send_welcome"]:
execute_step(step)
if step.requires_ai():
agent.execute(step)
AGEM Integration
Native Tools
run_agem_cycle — Execute each step in sequenceget_agem_state — Monitor step completionspawn_agem_agent — Use specialized agents for steps requiring different reasoning styles
MCP Server Usage
mcp-logic — Prove step dependencies and ordering constraintssheaf-consistency-enforcer — Register each step's output as agent state for consistency tracking
Workflow Template
1. Define ordered step list with clear inputs/outputs
2. For each step:
a. Check if deterministic → execute with code
b. Check if requires AI → run_agem_cycle for that step
c. Validate output before proceeding
3. On edge case failure → escalate to Question 2b pattern
Escalation to Other Patterns
When to escalate to other patterns:
| Signal | Next Pattern |
|---|
| Steps require external data | → Add Tool Use |
| Edge cases emerge requiring new steps | → → Question 2b (adaptive) |
| Different steps need different reasoning | → → Multi-Agent |
Quick-Start Template
## Sequential Workflow Definition
**Task**: [Task name]
**Path Known**: [YES/NO - if NO, use other pattern]
### Steps (ordered):
1. [Step 1] → expects: [X], produces: [Y]
2. [Step 2] → expects: [Y], produces: [Z]
3. [Step N] → expects: [...], produces: [final]
### AI Steps: [Which steps need agent reasoning]
### Code Steps: [Which steps are deterministic]
### Escalation Triggers:
- [Edge case condition] → escalate to [pattern]
See Also
