Sequential-wave dispatch for WO chains where output of one feeds the next, shared locks, or shared files prevent fan-out. Use when planning dependent multi-WO landings.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
Sequential-wave dispatch for WO chains where output of one feeds the next, shared locks, or shared files prevent fan-out. Use when planning dependent multi-WO landings.
user-invocable
false
allowed-tools
Read, Glob, Grep, TodoWrite
model
opus
created
"2026-04-25T00:00:00.000Z"
modified
"2026-07-18T00:00:00.000Z"
compatibility
claude-code
reviewed
"2026-06-06T00:00:00.000Z"
Wave-Based Dispatch
The agent-side dispatch discipline for sequential WO chains. Same pillars as
parallel-agent-dispatch — disjoint ownership, return contracts, shared-file
exclusion — but the gates between waves are different from the gates
inside a wave. This skill is those between-wave gates.
When to Use This Skill
Use wave-based dispatch when…
Use parallel-agent-dispatch alone when…
Use exclusive-lock-dispatch when…
A later WO needs a file, type, or API the earlier WO defines
All WOs operate on disjoint, lock-free scopes
One tool holds an exclusive lock and N agents need its outputs
A research probe (Ghidra decomp, spec experiment, API trace) gates downstream scope
Scope is fully known up front
Lock-holder is slow enough to amortise via pre-dump
Two candidate agents would both modify the same shared manifest / tracker / build file
Shared-file exclusion list is small and stable
Pre-computed artefacts can replace re-running the lock holder
A bug surfaced during orchestrator-apply needs the same context as the dispatched agent
Issues are recoverable inside a single wave
Lock contention is the only sequencing reason
The three skills compose: each wave is itself a parallel-agent-dispatch,
lock-holding waves use exclusive-lock-dispatch for the pre-dump, and
this skill covers the boundary between waves.
Picking Wave-Based Over Parallel
Trigger
Why parallel fails
Wave-based response
Dependency chain — WO-B imports types from WO-A
WO-B's brief is stale before WO-A lands; the agent guesses or stalls
WO-A in wave 1, WO-B in wave 2 referencing WO-A's landed paths
Second concurrent invocation fails with a lock error; orchestrator burns a turn diagnosing
Lock holder runs alone in its wave; downstream waves read pre-dumped artefacts
Orchestrator-edit contention — multiple agents return verbatim patches against the same CMakeLists.txt / / manifest
justfile
Last-writer-wins silently loses the earlier edit; merge conflicts pile up at apply time
Stage edits to those files between waves so the orchestrator applies them serially
If any trigger matches, the work belongs in waves. Inside each wave,
parallel-agent-dispatch still applies as the per-agent contract.
The Research-Before-WO Gate
When the scope of a downstream WO depends on information that only a tool
run can produce — Ghidra decomp, a live API trace, the actual structure
of a binary format, a benchmark — run that probe as its own first wave
before the implementation WO is written.
The reason is concrete: the implementation WO's size collapses once
the probe lands. A WO scoped as "unknown — possibly days, depends on the
binary's actual layout" turns into "plumb a known pointer from offset
0x40 to the existing decoder, hours" once the research wave produces a
spec artefact. Writing the brief before the research lands locks in the
worst-case framing and the agent burns its window re-deriving the
information.
Process:
Wave 1 brief asks the probe agent to write findings to gitignored
scratch (tmp/research/format-spec.md, tmp/decomp/strings.txt,
tmp/api/probe-results.json).
Probe agent returns a Return Contract that lists the artefact paths.
Implementation WO is written after wave 1 closes, citing those
paths verbatim and forbidding re-running the probe.
If the artefacts are insufficient, the implementation agent returns
partial with the missing question in Orchestrator action needed,
and the orchestrator dispatches a follow-up probe wave rather than
letting the implementation agent improvise.
See agent-patterns-plugin:exclusive-lock-dispatch when the probe tool
holds an exclusive lock — the pre-dump mechanics there are the right
shape for the research wave's brief.
The Pilot-Before-Fan-Out Gate
When the same transformation will be applied to N items (repos, files,
packages, services), validate the whole recipe on one representative
pilot end-to-end — including the riskiest unknown — before fanning out.
Wave 1 is the pilot; wave 2 is the fan-out, and it mirrors the landed
pilot rather than re-deriving the recipe N times in parallel.
The reason is concrete: a parallel fan-out over an unvalidated recipe
multiplies a single wrong assumption into N broken outputs, and you pay
for all N before discovering the flaw. Proving it once converts the
fan-out agents' job from "figure out how" to "replicate this exact,
working example" — which is both cheaper and far more reliable.
Process:
Wave 1 = the pilot. Pick the simplest representative item. Do
the full transformation, and explicitly confirm the load-bearing
unknown — the one thing that, if it didn't work, would invalidate
the entire approach (a build externalization, an API contract, a
migration codemod's output).
Gate. The pilot's own gates (build/test/lint) must pass and
the risky unknown must be confirmed before any fan-out brief is
written.
Wave 2 = the fan-out. Each agent is told to mirror the landed
pilot — cite its path verbatim as the reference implementation — with
per-item detection only for the parts that genuinely vary.
If the pilot reveals the approach is wrong, re-plan. Cheap,
because only one item was touched.
Distinct from the Research-Before-WO Gate above: research produces a
spec / artefact to scope an unknown ("what should we build?"); a pilot
produces a working reference implementation of a repeatable change
("we know what to build — is the recipe sound, and does the risky step
actually work?"). Reach for research when the scope is unknown; reach for
a pilot when the scope is known but the recipe is unproven.
Six-Gate Verification Table Between Waves
No brief for wave N+1 is written until wave N's gates pass. The gate set
is fixed — drifting the gates between waves is how regressions slip in.
#
Gate
Signal
Why it matters between waves
1
Build
Project compile / typecheck recipe succeeds
Wave N+1 will import wave N's symbols; broken build poisons the next brief
2
Tests
Project test recipe succeeds (with the wave's flag set when applicable)
Wave N's queue must be empty before wave N+1's tasks are filed
5
Feature-tracker drain
Tracker entries touched by the wave advance from in progress to done, with evidence pointers
Sidecar status survives the session; the next wave can cite landed work
6
Clean tree
git status --porcelain empty
Loose ends become invisible work after the next wave lands on top
A gate failure rolls back to fix in place, retry the gate — never to
"dispatch wave N+1 and paper over it." If the wave is unrecoverable,
revert it and re-brief.
Gating on a green PR vs a landed merge
The six gates assume wave N landed on main (Gate 6: clean tree). That
holds when the orchestrator merges each wave itself. But when a human reviews
and merges — so waves can't land before wave N+1 is due — don't stall the
pipeline waiting for the merge. Gate wave N+1 on wave N's foundation PR being
green (CI passing on the open PR) and stack wave N+1 on wave N's branch
(gh pr create --base <wave-N-branch>), so it builds on wave N's content
without waiting on the merge. Two adjustments:
Gate 6 becomes "wave N's PR is green," not "merged." Gates 1–5 (build,
tests, smoke, task/tracker drain) still apply — run them on wave N's branch.
CI scoped to pull_request: [main] does not run on the stacked children
(their base is a feature branch), so their gate is a local build/test
until they're retargeted to main.
Honor stacked-PR merge order at landing time: retarget children to mainbefore the base PR merges and deletes its branch, then rebase
--onto origin/main <old-base-tip> to drop the squashed base commits. See
git-plugin:git-pr (Stacked PRs) and git-plugin:git-conflicts (rerere can
replay the resolution across the base merge and each child rebase).
The ~10-Line Inline-Fix Threshold
When a wave returns and a small bug surfaces during the orchestrator's
apply step, the orchestrator has a choice: fix it inline, or file a
follow-up WO for the next wave. The threshold is approximate but
load-bearing:
Situation
Decision
~10 lines of fix, orchestrator already has the symbolic context
Fix inline
Fix spans multiple files or needs the agent's exploration log
Follow-up WO in the next wave
Fix is mechanical (rename, reformat, missing import)
Fix inline
Fix requires a design judgement
Follow-up WO — judgement is cheaper to revisit than re-inject
The deciding question is: "Will the orchestrator spend less time fixing
in place than re-writing a brief and re-loading the agent's context?"
Below ~10 lines, usually yes. A concrete signal that the threshold was
right: a bug that was a missing branch in --no-present mode landed as
a one-edit orchestrator fix instead of a whole re-dispatch turn.
This is not an excuse to skip waves entirely — it is a release
valve for the small issues that always surface at apply time. Use it
sparingly; once the inline fix exceeds ~10 lines, file the WO.
Stable Shared-File Exclusion List Across Waves
parallel-agent-dispatch §Shared-File Exclusion List defines the
orchestrator-only files that no agent may touch (manifest, tracker,
top-level plan, build manifests, justfile, task store). That list is
derived once in the wave-1 brief and referenced by name in every
subsequent wave's brief. Do not re-derive it.
Re-deriving the list per wave drifts it — wave 2 forgets the
Cargo.toml entry that wave 1 had, wave 3 forgets the tracker, and on
the Nth wave a silent manifest clobber lands. The discipline is:
Wave 1 brief spells out the full exclusion list under
### Orchestrator-only files.
Wave N+1 brief says, verbatim:
"Orchestrator-only files: as defined in the wave-1 brief. No
additions, no removals. If you believe a new file belongs on the
list, return partial and surface it in Orchestrator action needed — do not edit it."
The same discipline applies to pre-allocated blueprint IDs, ADR
numbers, and any monotonic counters (parallel-agent-dispatch
§Pre-Allocated Blueprint IDs). Allocate up front; reference by ID in
later waves.
Workflow-side view: which waves exist, what to do when a gate fails
Where wave candidates come from
taskwarrior-plugin:task-coordinate
Surfaces unblocked tasks while skipping lock-contenders
This skill is the dispatch-time discipline that ties them together —
the agent-pattern view of why the chain is sequential and what the
between-wave gates buy you.
Research probe scheduled as wave 1 if any downstream scope is unknown
Six-gate verification table applied at every wave boundary
Shared-file exclusion list cited in wave 1, referenced by name in waves 2..N
Return Contract referenced from parallel-agent-dispatch, never redefined
Inline-fix threshold (~10 lines) honoured at wave-end
No brief for wave N+1 written until wave N's gates pass
Common Mistakes
Mistake
Correct Approach
Writing the implementation brief before the research probe lands
Research wave first; implementation brief cites the artefact paths
Skipping a gate "because nothing changed"
All six gates run at every boundary; cheap gates are cheap on purpose
Re-deriving the exclusion list per wave
Cite once in wave 1; reference by name in waves 2..N
Filing every small issue as a follow-up WO
Inline-fix when ≤ ~10 lines and the orchestrator has the context
Treating a gate failure as "dispatch the next wave to fix it"
Fix in place and retry the gate; revert and re-brief if unrecoverable
Related
agent-patterns-plugin:parallel-agent-dispatch — intra-wave contract; the §Worktree Preflight, §Scope Budget, §Return Contract, and §Shared-File Exclusion List sections apply unchanged inside every wave
agent-patterns-plugin:exclusive-lock-dispatch — pre-dump mechanics for lock-contending waves; this skill cites it as the right shape for the research wave's brief
git-plugin:git-pr / git-plugin:git-conflicts — stacked-PR merge order (retarget children before deleting the base, --onto squash cleanup) and pre-merge trial integration for landing a wave's PRs
rust-plugin:cargo-worktree-builds — when the waves are Rust worktrees, share one pre-warmed CARGO_TARGET_DIR so deps compile once across all worktrees
taskwarrior-plugin:task-coordinate — where wave candidates come from: surfaces the next N unblocked tasks while excluding lock-contenders
Evidence: porting the 158-line wave-based-dispatch project rule
(skullcaps-native, 2026-04-24) into a reusable skill. The rule
earned promotion after a six-wave dependent landing shipped in one
day with zero merge conflicts, one inline fix, and zero
exclusion-list drift across waves.
