Claude
Skill
multi-agent-orchestration
Coordinate specialized subagents (architect, implementer, reviewer, analyst, researcher) with clear roles, handoffs, and validation. Use spawn for parallel independent tracks.
Virus-scanned
Reviewed automatically before listing.
Download
navinspire-ia-navin-navin_skills_multi-agent-orchestration-e9c73a3.zip · 1 KB
Install
skills CLI
npx skills add https://github.com/Navinspire-ia/navin/tree/main/navin/skills/multi-agent-orchestration
Claude Code
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install navinspire-ia-navin@llmmart
Git
git clone https://github.com/Navinspire-ia/navin.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole navinspire-ia/navin collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
Multi-Agent Orchestration
Overview
Split complex work across roles. You remain the orchestrator: define tasks, merge results, and own the final answer.
Roles (pick what you need)
| Role | Responsibility | Typical tools |
|---|---|---|
| Architect | design, interfaces, risks | read_file, grep |
| Implementer | code / config changes | edit / write_file, exec |
| Reviewer | bugs, regressions, style | read_file, grep, exec tests |
| Analyst | data, metrics, SQL | exec, web tools |
| Researcher | docs, competitors, APIs | web_search, web_fetch |
Workflow
- Decompose with
task-plannerthinking: which tracks are independent? - Spawn only independent work via
spawn(task=..., label=...).- Put the full brief in
task- subagents do not see your full history. - Include success criteria and “out of scope”.
- Independent tracks go out together, in one batch: they run concurrently and each reports back on its own, so waiting for one before starting the next buys nothing.
- Put the full brief in
- Serialize conflicting edits - never spawn two writers on the same files.
- Integrate results: resolve conflicts, run verification, present one coherent outcome.
- Review gate: for user-facing or production changes, run a reviewer pass (same chat or
spawn) before claiming done.
Task brief template (put inside spawn.task)
Role: Implementer
Goal: ...
Context paths: ...
Constraints: ...
Done when: ... (copy acceptance from the mission/board step)
Validation: test|lint|verify|manual|none
Do not: ...
Ledger step id: ...
Return evidence the parent can pass to board ledger_progress / done.
Rules
- Prefer 1-3 subagents; more creates merge chaos.
- You deliver the final summary - never dump raw subagent noise.
- If a subagent fails, retry with a tighter brief or finish yourself.
- If a result never reaches you,
spawn(action="results")says how the finished ones ended. Use it instead of assuming a subagent never ran. - Security / prod deploys always need an explicit reviewer step.
- Parent marks board
doneonly after merging evidence that satisfies validation.
Files (navin)
-
SKILL.md 2.4 KB
--- name: multi-agent-orchestration description: Coordinate specialized subagents (architect, implementer, reviewer, analyst, researcher) with clear roles, handoffs, and validation. Use spawn for parallel independent tracks. metadata: {"navin":{"emoji":"🕸️","category":"intelligence"}} --- # Multi-Agent Orchestration ## Overview Split complex work across roles. You remain the orchestrator: define tasks, merge results, and own the final answer. ## Roles (pick what you need) | Role | Responsibility | Typical tools | |------|----------------|---------------| | Architect | design, interfaces, risks | `read_file`, `grep` | | Implementer | code / config changes | `edit` / `write_file`, `exec` | | Reviewer | bugs, regressions, style | `read_file`, `grep`, `exec` tests | | Analyst | data, metrics, SQL | `exec`, web tools | | Researcher | docs, competitors, APIs | `web_search`, `web_fetch` | ## Workflow 1. **Decompose** with `task-planner` thinking: which tracks are independent? 2. **Spawn only independent work** via `spawn(task=..., label=...)`. - Put the full brief in `task` - subagents do not see your full history. - Include success criteria and “out of scope”. - Independent tracks go out together, in one batch: they run concurrently and each reports back on its own, so waiting for one before starting the next buys nothing. 3. **Serialize conflicting edits** - never spawn two writers on the same files. 4. **Integrate** results: resolve conflicts, run verification, present one coherent outcome. 5. **Review gate**: for user-facing or production changes, run a reviewer pass (same chat or `spawn`) before claiming done. ## Task brief template (put inside spawn.task) ```text Role: Implementer Goal: ... Context paths: ... Constraints: ... Done when: ... (copy acceptance from the mission/board step) Validation: test|lint|verify|manual|none Do not: ... Ledger step id: ... ``` Return evidence the parent can pass to `board` `ledger_progress` / `done`. ## Rules - Prefer 1-3 subagents; more creates merge chaos. - You deliver the final summary - never dump raw subagent noise. - If a subagent fails, retry with a tighter brief or finish yourself. - If a result never reaches you, `spawn(action="results")` says how the finished ones ended. Use it instead of assuming a subagent never ran. - Security / prod deploys always need an explicit reviewer step. - Parent marks board `done` only after merging evidence that satisfies validation.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.