Conducting the Orchestra: How agent-orchestration Turned Chaos Into Coordination

Get the tool: agent-orchestration

Also check out: multi-agent-patterns

The Day My Agents Started Fighting

I had four agents running. A code reviewer analyzing my pull request. An explorer mapping the dependency graph. A planner sketching out the refactoring steps. And my main Claude session, where I was trying to coordinate all of this manually.

It was a disaster.

The reviewer kept flagging files the planner hadn't gotten to yet. The explorer was surfacing architecture decisions the reviewer needed but couldn't see. I was copy-pasting context between windows, losing track of which agent knew what, and watching my token budget evaporate as I re-explained the same background information to each specialist.

Multi-agent workflows sound elegant in theory. In practice, without coordination, they're just concurrent chaos.

That's when I built the agent-orchestration plugin. Because the problem wasn't the agents - they were each doing their job well. The problem was me. I was the bottleneck, the manual message bus, the context relay station. And I was terrible at it.

The Conductor Problem

Here's the thing about orchestras: every musician is a specialist. The violinist doesn't need to know how to play the timpani. The oboist doesn't manage the brass section. Each one focuses on their instrument, their part, their contribution to the whole.

But without a conductor, an orchestra is just a room full of people making noise at the same time.

Multi-agent AI systems have the same problem. You can spawn a dozen specialized agents, each brilliant at their specific task. But someone needs to:

• Decide which agents to invoke for a given task
• Manage the context that flows between them
• Handle handoffs when one agent's output becomes another's input
• Prevent duplication and conflicts
• Keep track of the overall goal when each agent only sees their piece

In my early experiments, that "someone" was me. Alt-tabbing between terminal windows. Maintaining mental state for four parallel processes. Getting increasingly confused about who knew what.

It didn't scale. It barely worked for simple tasks. For complex multi-stage workflows, it was unsustainable.

What Agent Orchestration Actually Does

The agent-orchestration plugin provides three things that made multi-agent workflows actually work for me:

1. The Context Manager Agent

This is the brain of the operation. The context-manager agent specializes in exactly one thing: making sure the right information gets to the right agent at the right time.

yamlCopy---
name: context-manager
description: Elite AI context engineering specialist mastering dynamic context management, vector databases, knowledge graphs, and intelligent memory systems
model: inherit
---

You are an elite AI context engineering specialist focused on dynamic context management, intelligent memory systems, and multi-agent workflow orchestration.

What does "context engineering" mean in practice? It means:

• Dynamic context assembly: Instead of each agent getting a full project dump, they get precisely the context relevant to their task
• Agent-to-agent handoff: When the explorer finishes mapping the codebase, its findings flow automatically to the planner
• Token budget management: Context gets compressed, summarized, and pruned to keep conversations efficient
• State preservation: The system remembers what's been discovered across agent invocations

The context-manager acts as the conductor's memory. It knows what each section of the orchestra has played, what's coming up, and what needs to be communicated.

2. The Multi-Agent Optimization Command

Once you have multiple agents running, you need to make sure they're not stepping on each other. The

command analyzes your agent configurations and suggests improvements:

bashCopy/multi-agent-optimize

# Analyzes:
# - Parallel execution opportunities
# - Context window efficiency
# - Inter-agent communication overhead
# - Cost per task across agents
# - Bottleneck identification

It's like having a production engineer review your distributed system - except the system is AI agents working together.

The command implements profiling across three domains:

pythonCopydef multi_agent_profiler(target_system):
    agents = [
        DatabasePerformanceAgent(target_system),
        ApplicationPerformanceAgent(target_system),
        FrontendPerformanceAgent(target_system)
    ]

    performance_profile = {}
    for agent in agents:
        performance_profile[agent.__class__.__name__] = agent.profile()

    return aggregate_performance_metrics(performance_profile)

This isn't theoretical - it's practical performance tracking that tells you which agents are pulling their weight and which are burning tokens without progress.

3. The Agent Improvement Workflow

The

command implements a systematic approach to making individual agents better at their jobs. But here's the key insight: in a multi-agent system, improving one agent can break coordination with others.

The workflow handles this by:

• Establishing baseline metrics before changes
• Running A/B tests between original and improved versions
• Measuring impact on downstream agents that depend on this one
• Staged rollout so a bad change doesn't crater your whole system

It's continuous improvement for AI workers, with the safety nets you'd expect in any production deployment.

Supervisor Patterns vs. Swarm Architectures

The plugin supports two fundamentally different approaches to multi-agent coordination. And if you want to go deeper on these patterns, the multi-agent-patterns plugin provides battle-tested implementations you can drop into your workflows.

Supervisor Pattern

One agent (typically the context-manager) acts as the coordinator. It receives tasks, delegates to specialists, aggregates results, and maintains the overall workflow state.

CopyUser Task -> Supervisor -> Agent A
                       -> Agent B  -> Supervisor -> Final Output
                       -> Agent C

This is hierarchical. Clear chains of command. Easy to debug because you can trace decisions through the supervisor's reasoning. But the supervisor becomes a bottleneck - everything flows through it.

The multi-agent-patterns plugin provides several supervisor variants:

• Simple Supervisor: One coordinator, multiple workers. Good for well-defined tasks where you know the subtasks upfront.
• Hierarchical Supervisor: Supervisors managing supervisors. Useful when your problem domain has natural layers (e.g., a project lead coordinating team leads who each manage specialists).
• Dynamic Supervisor: The supervisor spawns and terminates workers based on task complexity. Better resource utilization, but more complex to reason about.

When should you use supervisor architectures? When you need:

• Auditability: Every decision traces back through the supervisor
• Resource control: The supervisor manages token budgets and agent lifetimes
• Consistency: One source of truth for workflow state
• Predictability: The topology is fixed and visible

Swarm Architecture

Agents communicate peer-to-peer. When Agent A finishes its task, it passes results directly to Agent B. No central coordinator. Agents self-organize based on the work available.

CopyUser Task -> Agent A -> Agent B
                    \-> Agent C -> Agent D
                             \-> Agent E

This is messier but scales better. No single point of failure. Agents can work in parallel without waiting for central coordination. But it's harder to debug, harder to monitor, and prone to emergent chaos if agents disagree about priorities.

The multi-agent-patterns plugin offers swarm implementations that manage the chaos:

• Stigmergic Swarm: Agents communicate through a shared environment (think ant pheromone trails). An agent marks work as "in progress" or "complete," and others react to those markers without direct communication.
• Broadcast Swarm: Agents announce their outputs to all listeners. Any agent that needs that information grabs it. High communication overhead, but maximum flexibility.
• Pub/Sub Swarm: Agents subscribe to topics they care about. More efficient than broadcast, but requires upfront topic design.

When should you reach for swarm patterns?

• Exploratory tasks: When you don't know the subtasks until agents start discovering them
• Resilience requirements: No single point of failure means one agent crashing doesn't kill the workflow
• High parallelism: Agents don't wait for a central coordinator to become available
• Emergent behavior: Sometimes you want agents to self-organize around the problem

Choosing Between Them

Here's my rule of thumb after running both patterns in production:

Use supervisor when the task structure is known, the workflow is business-critical, and you need to explain what happened afterward. Code review pipelines, compliance checks, anything where "the supervisor decided X because of Y" matters.

Use swarm when you're exploring a problem space, running experiments, or need maximum throughput. Research tasks, competitive analysis, anything where you'd rather have agents discover the structure than impose it upfront.

Use hybrid (and this is where multi-agent-patterns really shines) when you need both. A supervisor handles task decomposition and final aggregation, but workers communicate directly for detailed collaboration. The supervisor stays in the loop without being in the critical path.

The agent-orchestration plugin supports all three - and the multi-agent-patterns plugin gives you the building blocks to implement them without reinventing coordination primitives.

The Refactoring That Actually Worked

Remember that four-agent disaster I mentioned? Let me tell you how it should have gone - and how it went once I had proper orchestration.

The task: Refactor authentication across three microservices to use a shared library.

The old way (chaos):

• Spawned an explorer to map auth implementations
• Spawned a planner to design the shared library
• Spawned a reviewer to check my initial changes
• Spent two hours relaying context between them
• Gave up and did it manually

The orchestrated way:

1. Context-manager received the high-level task
2. Spawned explorer with focused context: "Map authentication patterns in services X, Y, Z"
3. Explorer's findings automatically compressed and routed to planner
4. Planner designed the shared library with full awareness of what exists
5. Planner's output became the reviewer's checklist for verifying changes
6. I implemented the changes, and the reviewer knew exactly what to check because it had seen the plan

Each agent only saw what it needed. Context flowed in one direction (exploration -> planning -> review). No duplication. No manual relay. The orchestration layer handled the boring coordination work so I could focus on the actual implementation.

Total time: 45 minutes. And I wasn't exhausted from context-switching.

The Philosophy: Agentic Development at Scale

I've written before about agentic development - the idea that you're the orchestrator, not the sole implementer. You delegate to specialized AI workers, focus on decisions that need your judgment, and let agents handle the rest.

The agent-orchestration plugin takes this further: it's agentic development where even the orchestration is partially automated.

You're still the conductor. You still decide what symphony to play, how fast, with what feeling. But you don't have to personally cue every musician or remember every part. The plugin provides the sheet music distribution, the section coordination, the tempo synchronization.

This is what multi-agent workflows need to become useful at scale:

• Not just parallelism (running agents side by side)
• Not just specialization (having experts for different tasks)
• But actual orchestration (coordinating specialists into coherent workflows)

The difference is leverage. Multiple agents without orchestration is like having five developers who never talk to each other. Multiple agents with orchestration is like having a team.

Getting Started

The agent-orchestration plugin is available in the agents-skills-plugins repo.

Start with the context-manager agent. Even if you're not running complex multi-agent workflows yet, understanding how context flows between AI interactions changes how you think about designing agent-based systems.

Then try

on your existing agent collection. You might be surprised at the inefficiencies hiding in plain sight.

For deeper dives into agentic development and AI workflows, visit chainbytes.com. And for more tools built on these principles, explore the full agents-skills-plugins collection.

---

I spent months thinking about multi-agent workflows as an embarrassingly parallel problem. More agents, more throughput, right?

Wrong. The real problem was never parallel execution. It was coordination. Communication. Context management. All the messy human problems that software engineering solved decades ago - except now for AI workers.

Agent-orchestration doesn't make your agents smarter. It makes them work together. And that turns out to be the harder problem.

"A single agent can be brilliant. Multiple agents without coordination are just expensive noise. The conductor doesn't play an instrument - but without the conductor, there's no music."

---

More on agentic development at chainbytes.com. More tools at github.com/EricGrill/agents-skills-plugins.