Central LLM dynamically breaks down tasks and delegates to specialist workers.
Recent activity
Version cuts and proof, newest first — the living track record.
Spec sheet
The benchmark fields — designed for comparison across teams.
- Topology
- Orchestrator–Worker
- Agent count
- 2
- Platform
- Claude API
- Runs on
- Claude API ×2
- Industries
- software-deliveryresearchdata-extraction
- Task kinds
- multi-file-codingresearch-synthesisdynamic-task-decomposition
- Trust tier
- Self-Reported
- Proof entries
- 1
Topology & roster
One orchestrator LLM directs N worker LLMs. Subtasks are determined dynamically at runtime, not predefined. The orchestrator synthesizes worker results. Key difference from parallelization: flexibility — the orchestrator decides task boundaries based on input.
System wiring
Node details
Typical Orchestrator–Worker layout — schematic, not verified wiring
HumanHuman operatorHuman gate
- Tool
- Human operator
- Autonomy
- Human-gated
- directs → Orchestrator
OrchestratorOrchestrator
- Tool
- Orchestrator
- Autonomy
- Runs autonomously
- dispatches → Worker agent
- requests gate → QA reviewer
- directs ← Human operator
BuilderWorker agent
- Tool
- Worker agent
- Autonomy
- Runs autonomously
- commits to → Shared workspace
- dispatches ← Orchestrator
QAQA reviewer
- Tool
- QA reviewer
- Autonomy
- Runs autonomously
- gate verdict → Shared workspace
- requests gate ← Orchestrator
ResourceShared workspace
- Tool
- Shared workspace
- Autonomy
- Runs autonomously
- commits to ← Worker agent
- gate verdict ← QA reviewer
How a typical Orchestrator–Worker team handles a task
Typical Orchestrator–Worker layout — schematic, not verified wiring
Task arrives
Human operator directs Orchestrator.
The orchestrator routes the work
Orchestrator dispatches build work to Worker agent.
Worker agent builds the work
Worker agent builds the work.
Independent review gates the work
QA reviewer reviews the work. This reviewer is autonomous and separate from the agent that built the work, so the check is independent of its author.
The artifact lands
The artifact lands in Shared workspace: Worker agent contributes via "commits to" and QA reviewer contributes via "gate verdict".
Human holds the last word
Human operator holds final approval.
Replicate a typical Orchestrator–Worker setup
Typical Orchestrator–Worker layout — schematic, not verified wiring
Ingredients
- HumanHuman operator
- OrchestratorOrchestrator
- BuilderWorker agent
- QAQA reviewer
- ResourceShared workspace
Setup order
- 1.Provision the substrate: Shared workspace.
- 2.Stand up the orchestrator: Orchestrator.
- 3.Wire Worker agent: it receives "dispatches" from Orchestrator. Wire QA reviewer: it receives "requests gate" from Orchestrator.
- 4.Give QA reviewer an independent workspace/verdict channel: "gate verdict" to Shared workspace.
- 5.Declare the human gate: Human operator holds final approval.
Performance metrics
Windowed metrics with provenance. [unknown] means it was not tracked — an honest hole beats an invented figure.
Anthropic "Building effective agents" guide is a pattern reference; no benchmark figures stated. Source: anthropic.com/research/building-effective-agents
Token economics
Cost transparency is part of the honesty architecture. [unknown] means it was not tracked — not that it is zero.
Blueprint
Operational DNA — why it works, how it was built, and how it is overseen. Not files for sale; knowledge of the design.
The orchestrator adapts task decomposition to the specific input rather than following a fixed pipeline, making it effective for unpredictable problem spaces. Workers execute bounded subtasks, limiting blast radius of individual failures.
Implemented directly against the Claude API without a framework layer. Anthropic recommends starting with the simplest solution and adding complexity only when needed. Routing easy/common questions to smaller models (e.g. Haiku) and hard/unusual questions to more capable models (e.g. Sonnet) is documented as a cost-control technique.
Described as suitable for tasks where "it's difficult or impossible to predict" the required subtasks in advance. Human oversight recommended for high-stakes outputs.
Proof (1)
The team's shared track record — tasks, incidents, lessons, milestones. Per-entry provenance tags are always visible.
- ArtifactJan 1, 2025evidence-linked
Anthropic "Building Effective Agents" engineering guide published
Describes orchestrator-workers as one of five patterns for building effective agents. Recommends starting simple and adding complexity only when demonstrated benefit exists.
https://www.anthropic.com/research/building-effective-agents
Sign in to add a proof entry.
Sign inAttestations (0)
Named third-party statements from people with first-hand experience. Attestations are what separates Peer-Attested from Evidence-Linked.
No attestations yet. Worked with this configuration or agent? Attest to it using the form below — attestations are named third-party statements and are what separates Peer-Attested from Evidence-Linked.
Sign in to attest to this team.
Sign in