agent-orchestra

Design and compose multi-agent graphs for correctness, coverage, or creativity. Use when a task benefits from isolated proposals, explicit arbitration, adversarial verification, committees, recursive review, cross-modal checks, or saturation loops. Applies across agent runtimes; the included JavaScript workflow is one adapter.

A catalog of multi-agent coordination structures and how to map them onto an orchestration runtime. The goal: be creative and deliberate about topology — pick (or invent) the structure that fits the task, not reflexively reach for one shape.

Token-efficient variant: when budget matters, apply token-efficient-orchestra on top of any graph here — economical models for redundant workers and stronger models for supervision chokepoints (arbiter/adversary/integrator/gate). The rule of thumb: redundancy downgrades, chokepoints upgrade.

---

0. Prime directives

1. Isolation is sacred. Independent agents MUST NOT see each other's output. Separate spawns, separate dirs, identical specs. A peek through the wall wastes N−1 agents.
2. The adversary is always on. Every produced artifact gets a skeptic whose job is to refute it, defaulting to "does not hold" when unsure. This catches failure classes a verifier may pass — a corrupt patch, a vacuous test, a cosmetic timeout. Never ship a pyramid without the refutation stage.
3. The orchestrator integrates; it does not draft. You (the caller) apply/merge results. The pyramid's named agents produce content. Never also draft a layer yourself.
4. Name every agent. Greek pantheon or any structured convention — never "Worker A". Names make integration legible and the topology readable from a label.
5. Receipts/provenance. Every spawn is logged (who, what topology, which model). The result carries the decision trail (verdict, gaps, adversary holds/severity).
6. Anti-averaging (Hecate Axiom 5). Synthesis adjudicates disagreement — picks winners, preserves dissent, strips fabrications. It never smooths conflict into mush.

Filesystem-safety directives (for code-producing structures)

7. Agents clone from a DISPOSABLE source, never the live tree. Make a throwaway copy first (git clone --no-hardlinks <live> /tmp/<proj>-source) and point agents at that. Assume an agent can escape its intended working directory. The disposable source limits the resulting damage to a throwaway copy rather than the live repo.
8. Redact absolute live paths from any doc agents read (e.g. SPEC.md). An agent that reads "local at " may still reveal location cues. Don't hand them the address.
9. Create a recoverable backup before every wave. Push to a remote only when the operator has already approved that destination and content. Otherwise make a local bundle or verified clone; recoverability is mandatory, publication is not.
10. Disjoint file ownership per wave. Two agents editing the same file produce diffs that collide on apply. Give each item a single-owner file set; if items must touch a shared file, serialize them across waves or fold the shared edit into one item. New-capability modules land standalone; you hand-wire them at integration.
11. Agents return diffs as text; you apply them. git add -A && git diff --cached → git apply --recount <patch> on the live tree (recount tolerates wrong hunk counts, a common model error). Verify .git is intact and run the suite before committing.

---

1. Execution substrate and adapters

The graph grammar is runtime-neutral. Preserve isolation, typed outputs, dependency edges, concurrency barriers, and filesystem boundaries when porting it. The code skeletons below use a JavaScript workflow adapter exposing agent, parallel, and pipeline; that API is one adapter, not a requirement of the pattern.

JavaScript workflow adapter mechanics

• Scripts are plain JavaScript. No TypeScript — : string[], interfaces, generics fail to parse.
• No raw backticks inside template-literal briefs. A backtick in a \...` brief closes the string early and breaks parsing. Use plain quotes inside briefs; escape backticks (\``) only in the prompt-builder functions.
• agent(prompt, {schema, label, phase, model, effort, agentType, isolation}) — with schema (a JSON Schema), the agent is forced to return a validated object. Always use a schema for anything you'll machine-process (diffs, verdicts, scores).
• parallel([thunks]) — barrier; awaits all; a thrown thunk becomes null → .filter(Boolean).
• pipeline(items, stage1, stage2, …) — the default. No barrier between stages; each item flows independently. Use parallel inside a stage for the fan-out, and pass phase: on each agent() to avoid races on the global phase() state.
• Concurrency is capped at min(16, cores−2); pass up to 4096 items and they queue.
• isolation: 'worktree' only works if the session cwd is itself a git repo. When it isn't (common), use the disposable-/tmp-source pattern instead (directive 7).
• budget / loop-until-dry / loop-until-count patterns exist for unknown-size work.

---

2. Structure catalog

Each entry: shape · when · adapter skeleton. Compose freely; these are primitives, not a menu.

The default move is to COMPOSE a custom graph, not to pick one row. The named structures below (pyramid, committee, Hecate, cross-review…) are nodes and motifs, not the unit of work. The real unit is the graph you wire for this task — sequential where there are dependencies, parallel where there aren't, multi-agent where one witness isn't enough, multi-type where different roles (builder / researcher / visual / adversary / integrator) belong on different nodes. A bespoke topology is expected, never exotic — you should reach for "what graph does this task want?" before reaching for any single skill or command. The worked example examples/saturating-review-engine.workflow.js is a custom graph for any reviewable artifact (paper, deck, README, landing page, design doc, dataset report) — read it as a template for how to compose, not as a paper tool.

2.0 The graph grammar (how to compose any custom topology)

Think in nodes and edges, then build it with the substrate from §1.

• Node = an agent call (agent(...)) with a role. Role types: DRAFTER, SYNTHESIZER, VERIFIER, ADVERSARY, VISUAL, INTEGRATOR, COORDINATOR. Pick the type per node — a graph is multi-type when nodes play different roles, which is the common case.
• A node can itself be a subgraph (recursion). A "reviewer" need not be one agent — it can be a whole pyramid+visual subgraph that returns a single review. Wrap it in an async function that runs its internal parallel/pipeline and returns the validated object (see §2.11). This is how you get arbitrarily deep graphs without arbitrarily complex top-level code.
• Edge = a data dependency. Sequential edge → put the consumer in a later pipeline stage or await it after the producer. Parallel (no edge) → same parallel([...]) batch. A modality-conditioned edge feeds one node's output into a node working in a different modality — e.g. a visual node that receives the text node's verdict and checks pixels against it (see §2.12). That edge is where contradictions surface.
• Feedback edge = a loop. Route a later node's output back to an earlier stage and iterate until a stop condition (a quality bar, or saturation — K rounds with nothing new). Two pyramids in a feedback loop (produce → critique → improve → re-examine) is the saturation engine of §2.13.
• Wire it, then sanity-check: every produced artifact has an adversary (directive 2); every machine-read output has a schema (§1); independent nodes never share context (directive 1).

2.1 Byzantine 2+1 — the floor

Shape: 2 isolated workers → 1 arbiter. When: any single correctness-critical step.

js

const drafts = await parallel([
  () => agent(spec, {label:'work:A', schema:S}),
  () => agent(spec, {label:'work:B', schema:S}),  // identical spec, different label only
])
const verdict = await agent(arbitratePrompt(drafts.filter(Boolean)), {schema:VERDICT})

Arbiter decision matrix: full agreement → apply (conf 90+); minor diffs → pick cleaner (80+); structural → analyze+merge (60–85); fundamental → escalate (<40).

2.2 Triple-verified research (A+B+C)

Shape: 2 independent researchers (zero shared context) → 1 cross-reference verifier that manually investigates disagreements. When: facts/predictions where only triple-verified data should survive. Scale 3 → 6–9 → 12+ by widening the researcher pool.

2.3 Pyramid Byzantine (the workhorse)

Shape: N drafters → comparator/synthesizer → proportional verifiers → adversary → integrator. When: hallucination-prone or high-stakes one-shots. Verifiers per cluster ≈ floor(N/2). Label outputs ✅ VERIFIED (unanimous) / ⚠️ CONTESTED (resolved disagreement) / ❌ STRIPPED (confirmed fabrication). See the hardened build pattern in §4.

2.4 Committee review (N×M)

Shape: N reviewers × M rounds until a quality bar is met, each committee with distinct criteria. When: quality iteration (papers, grants, designs). Loop:

js

let work = seed, round = 0
while (round++ < M) {
  const reviews = await parallel(CRITERIA.map(c => () => agent(reviewPrompt(work, c), {schema:R})))
  const verdict = await agent(judgePrompt(work, reviews), {schema:J})
  if (verdict.meets_bar) break
  work = await agent(rewritePrompt(work, reviews, verdict), {schema:W})
}

2.5 Arbiter-directed committee

Shape: N experts → an arbiter with decision authority and a verb menu each round: conclude · another round · ask Expert X a question · stage a debate between X and Y on topic Z · other intervention. When: the path to clarity isn't fixed — let the arbiter steer dynamically.

2.6 Cross-review + rewrite

Shape: N reviewers produce independent reviews → each sees ALL peer reviews → grades peers → rewrites its own. When: peer-informed revision without losing initial independence (the first pass is blind; exposure comes after).

2.7 Random cross-review

Shape: like 2.6 but each reviewer sees only M random peers. When: you want to preserve minority views — partial exposure stops premature consensus; a reviewer can hold firm.

2.8 Hecate dimensional search (orthogonality & emergence)

Shape: dimensions defined by negative constraints (what each CANNOT do, not a positive role) → independent passes → synthesis that adjudicates. When: you want emergent findings (claims no single dimension produced) and provably diverse coverage.

• Ω (orthogonality) = 1 − mean(pairwise cosine similarity of outputs). Higher = more independent.
• E(R) (emergence) = synthesis claims not traceable to any single dimension. Higher = more value.
• Design dimensions to maximize Ω: "you may NOT appeal to cost", "you may NOT cite prior art", "you may NOT consider the user" — orthogonal blinders force genuinely different reasoning.
• The formalism is a communication protocol, not peer-reviewed theory: the rigor exists to constrain the agents' interpretation space precisely, regardless of empirical validation.

2.9 Grinding mode (long-horizon)

Shape: 1 coordinator holding state + N workers over extended time, workers may depend on prior workers' output. When: multi-day projects with task dependencies. Encode as sequential pipeline waves where later items consume earlier artifacts.

2.10 Escalation protocol (the safety valve)

Triggers: arbiter confidence < 40, fundamental disagreement, or both workers wrong. Output: an escalation object — disagreement summary, both positions, analysis, tentative recommendation — surfaced to the human instead of a forced merge. Always give structures an escape hatch; a confident-wrong merge is worse than an honest escalation.

2.11 Recursive node (a worker that is itself a subgraph)

Shape: a single logical node — e.g. "Reviewer Aglaia" — expands into its OWN subgraph and returns one validated review. When: the unit you're fanning out over deserves more than one witness internally — you want N independent reviewers, but each reviewer should itself be robust, not a single agent's hot take. The inner subgraph is your choice — Byzantine-2, a Hecate lens spread, a persona panel, or a single pass for cheap nodes; the recursion is the point, not the filling.

js

async function runReviewer(rev, input, round) {            // <- the node IS a function
  const lenses = await parallel(LENSES.map(L => async () => {  // inner structure: pick whatever fits
    const drafts = await parallel([                          // (here Byzantine-2 per lens; swappable)
      () => agent(lensPrompt(rev,L,input,'A'), {phase:'Review', schema:LR}),
      () => agent(lensPrompt(rev,L,input,'B'), {phase:'Review', schema:LR}),
    ])
    return agent(lensSynth(rev,L,drafts.filter(Boolean)), {phase:'Review', schema:LR})
  }))
  return agent(reviewerSynth(rev, lenses.filter(Boolean)), {phase:'Review', schema:REVIEW})  // one node out
}
const reviews = (await parallel(REVIEWERS.map(r => () => runReviewer(r, input, 1)))).filter(Boolean)

The top level stays legible (a parallel over reviewers) while each "reviewer" hides a full subgraph. Compose this to any depth; just return one schema-validated object per level.

2.12 Modality-conditioned stage (cross-modal contradiction hunting)

Shape: a node working in modality B receives a node's verdict from modality A and is tasked to confirm or refute it against B's evidence. The canonical case: a VISUAL committee that reads the rendered page images AND the textual review of the same reviewer, hunting where the words and the pixels disagree. When: text alone is blind to surface truth — a title at the bottom of the page, an [insert figure here] placeholder, a figure whose bars contradict its caption, an unrendered equation. The text review can score 68% while the page is visibly unfinished; only the cross-modal edge catches it.

js

const text   = await agent(reviewerSynth(...), {phase:'Review', schema:TEXTREVIEW})
const visual = await parallel(VISUAL_LENSES.map(L => () =>
  agent(visualPrompt(L, manifest.image_paths, text), {phase:'Visual', schema:VISUAL})))  // sees text + pixels
const adv    = await agent(visualAdversary(visual), {phase:'Visual', schema:ADVERSARY})  // inverted bias: obvious defects default HOLD
return agent(reconcile(text, visual, adv), {schema:RECONCILED})   // pixels win on contradiction

Key inversion: the visual adversary defaults holds=true for obvious surface defects (humans DO penalise them) and holds=false for taste. Same byzantine machinery, flipped prior.

2.13 Saturation loop (two pyramids in feedback until dry)

Shape: a PRODUCE pyramid and an IMPROVE pyramid wired in a feedback loop — produce a verdict → improve the artifact to clear it → re-ingest the improved artifact → repeat. Stop on saturation: K consecutive rounds with no new findings (dedup against a seen set), no gate fired, and the improver's adversary holding. When: "review and harden X until it stops getting better" — and X is any artifact, not just a paper.

js

const seen = new Set(); let dry = 0, manifest = await agent(ingest(ARTIFACT), {schema:MANIFEST})
for (let round = 1; round <= MAX; round++) {
  const reviews = (await parallel(REVIEWERS.map(r => () => runReviewer(r, manifest, round)))).filter(Boolean)
  const panel   = await agent(panelSynth(reviews), {schema:PANEL})        // anti-averaging integrate
  const fresh   = panel.must_fix.filter(m => { const k = m.page+'|'+m.issue; return seen.has(k)?false:(seen.add(k),true) })
  if (!fresh.length && !panel.gate_applied && !panel.must_fix.length) { if (++dry >= 1) break } else dry = 0
  const fix = await parallel([() => agent(rewrite(manifest,panel,'A'),{schema:REWRITE}),
                              () => agent(rewrite(manifest,panel,'B'),{schema:REWRITE})])
  const chosen = await agent(rewriteArbiter(panel, fix.filter(Boolean)), {schema:VERDICT})
  manifest = await agent(ingest(chosen.new_artifact_path), {schema:MANIFEST})   // <- feedback edge
}

Full runnable version (recursive reviewers + modality-conditioned visual QA + this loop, all three composed): examples/saturating-review-engine.workflow.js.

---

3. Persona & model engineering (where real diversity comes from)

• Rich personas (100+ attributes) beat "you are an expert in X". Specify professional role + experience, background/mentors, demeanour (confidence, risk tolerance, contrarian tendency), nuances (blind spots, unusual expertise), quirks, and acknowledged biases. Surface variation ("be diverse") produces fake diversity; rich personas produce real disagreement.
• Negative constraints > positive roles. "Must NOT do X" is a harder boundary than "You ARE a Y." This is the Hecate insight and the single highest-leverage persona move.
• Worker preamble types: BUILDER / RESEARCHER / CREATIVE / INTEGRATOR — inject different behavioural DNA per role.
• Model diversity catches model-specific blindness: run the same persona across model tiers (model: on agent()). Two calls to the same model are one witness counted twice.
• N×M → N aggregation: N personas × M models = N×M outputs; each persona then synthesizes its own M versions (self-aggregation preserves persona coherence — don't let an external arbiter do it). Very high cost; reserve for maximum-diversity deliverables.

3.1 VERY human reviewers + the disqualifying-defect GATE (for any review graph)

Real human reviewers are annoyed, anchored, and biased — and that bias catches things a polite "expert reviewer" waves through. Two moves make a review graph behave like real humans:

• Give each reviewer a pet peeve + an ACKNOWLEDGED bias, and let it anchor. "A desk editor who anchors their whole judgement to the first ugly thing and does not recover." "A figure-hawk who reads every axis label before a word of prose and treats an [insert figure here] as near-fatal." Stated bias is a feature: it makes the reviewer score the way a human actually would.
• Encode a hard SCORING GATE, don't average. The failure mode to kill: a report with an obvious [insert figure here], a missing/broken figure, a title in the wrong place, or unrendered \ref/?? getting 68% because strong substance bought back a soft deduction. A human doesn't do that — an obvious disqualifying defect caps the score (e.g. ≤40) and attaches the flag "at best the author forgot to include material; at worst this was produced by an automated process that never inspected its own output." Make the gate a non-negotiable instruction in the synthesis + panel prompts, and seed it with a deterministic pre-scan (grep for placeholder patterns) so the defect's existence is ground truth and only its weight is judged. Substance must not buy back the cap. See GATE_DOCTRINE in the worked example.

---

4. A hardened build-work pattern (code via pyramid → applyable diffs)

Use this pattern for an "implement or migrate N items" task where independent implementation and adversarial review justify the overhead.

js

const SOURCE = '/tmp/proj-source'  // disposable clone of the live repo (directive 7)
// ITEMS: [{id, title, files /* single-owner scope */, brief /* NO raw backticks */}]

const results = await pipeline(ITEMS,
  // Stage 1 — two isolated implementers race the same item in their own /tmp clones.
  (item) => parallel([
    () => agent(implPrompt(item,'A'), {label:`impl:${item.id}:A`, phase:'Build', schema:IMPL, agentType:'general-purpose'}),
    () => agent(implPrompt(item,'B'), {label:`impl:${item.id}:B`, phase:'Build', schema:IMPL, agentType:'general-purpose'}),
  ]).then(impls => ({item, impls: impls.filter(Boolean)})),
  // Stage 2 — Oracle reads both diffs, picks the authoritative one, does gap analysis.
  (p) => agent(verifyPrompt(p.item, p.impls), {label:`verify:${p.item.id}`, phase:'Verify', schema:VERDICT})
           .then(v => ({item:p.item, verdict:v})),
  // Stage 3 — Cassandra tries to REFUTE the chosen diff (default holds=false if unsure).
  (p) => agent(refutePrompt(p.item, p.verdict), {label:`adversary:${p.item.id}`, phase:'Verify', schema:ADVERSARY})
           .then(a => ({id:p.item.id, diff:p.verdict.diff, gaps:p.verdict.gaps, adversary:a})),
)
return results.filter(Boolean)

Implementer brief must: rm -rf $WORKDIR && git clone -q $SOURCE $WORKDIR && cd $WORKDIR; a SANDBOX RULE forbidding any path outside $WORKDIR; touch only item.files; set up a venv + run the full suite; return git add -A && git diff --cached. Schemas: IMPL {variant,summary,diff, tests_passed,test_tail,files_touched}; VERDICT {chosen_variant,diff,rationale,gaps,confidence}; ADVERSARY {holds,problems,severity}. Integration (you, on the live tree): move strays aside → git apply --recount each chosen diff → run suite → read the adversary verdicts and fix any holds=false before committing → dogfood any linters → commit per-item provenance → push.

---

5. Selection guide

Structure	Agents	Best for	Overhead
Single agent	1	trivial / deterministic	none
Byzantine 2+1	3	correctness-critical step	low
Triple-verified	3→12+	research, predictions	low
Pyramid Byzantine	5–15+	hallucination-prone one-shots, builds	medium
Committee N×M	N×M	quality iteration	medium
Arbiter-directed	N+1	open-ended path to clarity	medium
Cross-review	N×2	peer-informed revision	medium
Random cross-review	N×2	preserving minority views	medium
Hecate dimensional	N+Σ	emergence, orthogonality	high
Recursive node (§2.11)	node×subgraph	robust per-witness (reviewer = pyramid)	high
Modality-conditioned (§2.12)	+visual	text-vs-pixel contradiction hunting	medium
Saturation loop (§2.13)	two pyramids ×R	harden any artifact until dry	high
Grinding	N+1	multi-day, dependent tasks	high
N×M aggregation	N×M	maximum diversity	very high

Scale verification to bits-at-risk, not by reflex: a zero-entropy step gets one agent; a high-stakes one gets the full pyramid. Spend tracks uncertainty.

---

6. Pre-flight checklist (run before launching any wave)

• Right structure for the task's stakes/uncertainty? (don't 5+1 a lookup; don't single-agent a migration)
• Items have disjoint single-owner file scopes? (or serialized across waves)
• Code-producing? → disposable /tmp source clone made; live path redacted; recoverable backup verified
• Every produced artifact has an adversary/refutation stage
• Schemas defined for every machine-processed output
• Briefs contain no raw backticks; script is plain JS
• Personas use negative constraints + rich attributes where diversity matters
• An escalation path exists for low-confidence/fundamental-disagreement
• Integration plan: how you'll apply (--recount), verify (.git + suite), and act on adversary holds

---

7. Meta-learnings (internalize these)

1. Formal theory is a communication protocol. Mathematical structure constrains AI interpretation and enables precise behavioural specification — independent of whether the theory is "true".
2. Negative constraints > positive roles. Harder boundaries, more orthogonal outputs.
3. Redundancy catches errors — agreement validates, disagreement flags investigation.
4. Emergence requires orthogonality — perspectives must be genuinely independent to find intersection patterns.
5. Rich personas produce real diversity; "you are an expert" produces theatre.
6. Model diversity catches model-specific blindness.
7. Self-aggregation preserves persona coherence — let the persona merge its own multi-model outputs.
8. The adversary earns its keep — it is the cheapest insurance against a plausible-but-wrong merge.
9. The expensive failures are silent — a diff that applies, tests that pass, and a defect that ships anyway. Adversarial refutation + dogfooding + reading the verdicts is how you catch them.