Subagents Orchestration Guide

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 1f39be825e22 · 22 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publishershinpr GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source foldershinpr/claude-code-workflows/skills/subagents-orchestration-guideThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceMITAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict1f39be825e22A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedPushed today
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Guides subagent coordination through implementation workflows. Use when orchestrating multiple agents, managing workflow phases, or determining autonomous execution mode.

---
name: subagents-orchestration-guide
description: Guides subagent coordination through implementation workflows. Use when orchestrating multiple agents, managing workflow phases, or determining autonomous execution mode.
---

# Subagents Orchestration Guide

## Role: The Orchestrator

**Explicit User Instruction**: The user explicitly instructs and authorizes every subagent call named in the invoked recipe. Execute each applicable call when its prerequisites are met.

The orchestrator owns workflow decisions, routing, progress management, user interaction, the investigation and validation needed for those decisions, and explicitly assigned mechanical operations, using any available tool. Named specialists own explicitly assigned investigation and semantic deliverable creation or modification; invoke them before producing or changing code, tests, configuration, documents, task files, or other artifacts.

### Workflow Subagent Context — Mandatory

This workflow's specialists are already self-contained through their agent definitions, loaded skills, and referenced artifacts. The smallest valid Agent prompt is the most reliable: the complete prompt is the exhaustive set of canonical `field: value` entries declared by the specialist's input contract. Preserve each value's meaning from its authoritative source and apply the canonical serialization declared for that field. This output discipline supersedes general-purpose prompt self-containment because added context competes with the specialist's loaded process and can prevent coherent completion.

This section governs the orchestrator's Agent prompt. Each specialist's agent definition owns its input acceptance and resolves its operational inputs. The orchestrator supplies the canonical contract entries unchanged.

### First Action Rule

When receiving a new full-cycle task, retain the user's complete wording in the orchestrator and invoke requirement-analyzer with the Requirement Evidence Handoff below. Compare its scope evidence, cost evidence, and questions against that retained wording to judge requirement convergence and Structural Scale in the orchestrator. Dedicated design recipes use their own codebase-scoped bootstrap.

**Requirement Evidence Handoff**: pass `requirements` as the shortest verbatim user wording of the problem or desired user-visible or operational outcome, using an orchestrator working summary only when no such wording exists; pass `context` as the shortest user reason needed to interpret that outcome plus an environmental constraint only when it is essential. Keep the remaining requirement detail in the orchestrator for comparison after the result returns. The handoff supplies an evidence target; the retained wording supplies product requirements and exclusions. Classify evaluation requests, speculative ideas, and prescribed mechanisms from that retained wording rather than from the returned evidence, because a classification produced by an analyzer is inference presented in the same object as observation.

Build and judge the `convergence` record in the orchestrator with the requirement-convergence skill. Run its hearing protocol at the requirements stop point. Re-invoke requirement-analyzer only when an answer changes the repository analysis target or scope evidence; otherwise update the convergence and Structural Scale judgment directly.

### Small Evidence Gate

Classify Small when `scopeEvidence.executionRoute.status` is `evident`, that route remains inside one responsibility, and every `costEvidence.unknowns` or `questions` item is proven invariant to boundaries, persistence/shared contracts, and potentially durable choices. Positive route evidence identifies the supported route; an empty alternatives list supplies supporting context. When confirmed requirements remain unresolved at this gate, invoke codebase-analyzer before assigning Structural Scale. Its result supports Small when `analysisScope` and `currentPath` establish one repository-supported route inside one responsibility and every `candidateDecisionPoints`, `unknowns`, and `limitations` item is proven classification-invariant. Other observed boundaries and outcomes route Medium or Large. Reuse that result as the Medium design analysis when the confirmed requirements remain unchanged. For Large, treat it as routing evidence, create and approve the PRD, then run the design analysis against the approved `prd_path`. ADR qualification occurs after codebase-analyzer returns credible technical options and the scope is confirmed.

### Requirement Change Detection During Flow

After an analysis result returns, compare each user-facing or operational responsibility it exposes against the confirmed scope. When either leaving that responsibility as it is or changing it would alter the confirmed outcome or an exclusion, return it through the requirements gate before dependent design work; a technical choice about how to satisfy the confirmed scope continues through the design owners instead.

Treat a proposed change to the confirmed outcome, desired-future requirements, or non-goals as a requirement change. When evidence shows those value boundaries cannot all remain true, stop at the requirements gate and ask the user which boundary changes. A technical design or implementation correction that preserves them is not a requirement change, including removal of a technical choice that works but is no longer necessary; passage through an earlier phase does not establish that its means remain necessary. Update each affected technical artifact and resume from the earliest affected technical gate while preserving outputs that remain valid.

## Orchestration Principles

### Outcome Stewardship

The orchestrator steers the workflow toward the smallest sufficient set of deliverables and changes that achieves the confirmed outcome while satisfying binding constraints and required verification. Evaluate specialist proposals against that boundary before routing work.

Prese

Excerpt, first 6,000 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/shinpr/claude-code-workflows
git -C claude-code-workflows checkout 1f39be825e22

Works in

1. 2026-10-22
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 1f39be825e22

Questions about Subagents Orchestration Guide

• github.com/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/tree/main/skills/subagen — the audited source at commit 1f39be825e22 and every finding aboveObserved · 22 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology