or.2: orchestrator-agent design correction — no nested subagent dispatch

Claude Code categorically forbids subagents from spawning other
subagents (code.claude.com/docs/en/sub-agents and the Agent SDK
subagents page). The `or.1` architecture (and `pr.1` that ran on
top of it) presumed a named-exception for `ailang-implement-
orchestrator` to dispatch implementer / spec-reviewer / quality-
reviewer / tester per task. That exception never existed at the
platform level; the `Agent` tool was silently dropped from the
orchestrator-agent's tool set at dispatch time.

Architecture revised, doc-only:

- Per-task phases (implementer → spec-compliance check → quality
  check) now run as sequential role-switches in the orchestrator-
  agent's own context, not as nested subagents.
- The four role-files (implementer / spec-reviewer / quality-
  reviewer / tester) become phase reference files the
  orchestrator-agent consults at role-switch boundaries.
- Boss-context offload preserved; fresh-per-phase context given
  up (the property that drove or.1's nested-dispatch design is
  not buildable in Claude Code).

Files touched:
- skills/implement/agents/ailang-implement-orchestrator.md
  (frontmatter, Iron Law, Phase 2/3 rewrite, rationalisations,
  red flags)
- skills/implement/SKILL.md (frontmatter, Iron Law, sub-status
  vocabulary note, cross-references)
- skills/README.md (Conventions: no more named exception; agent
  roster: role-files recast as phase references)
- docs/journals/INDEX.md (or.2 entry appended)
- docs/journals/2026-05-11-iter-or.2.md (new — full rationale)
- docs/roadmap.md (P1 tool-wiring item removed; resolved as
  categorically-not-fixable)
- docs/WhatsNew.md (user-facing correction entry appended)

No code changes; no bench impact; CLAUDE.md untouched (no stale
references to fix there).
This commit is contained in:
2026-05-11 13:01:38 +02:00
parent bd801b979c
commit 5c3bd9ab24
7 changed files with 340 additions and 97 deletions
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
name: ailang-implement-orchestrator
description: Use to run one full /implement iteration in a dedicated subagent context. Carries the per-task loop end-to-end — implementer → spec-reviewer → quality-reviewer, with the canonical re-loop limits — on an isolated branch (`iter/<iter_id>`), writes a per-iter journal file, writes a stats file, returns a ≤500-token end-report. The named exception to "agents do not call other agents".
tools: Read, Edit, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep, Agent
description: Use to run one full /implement iteration in a dedicated subagent context. Carries the per-task loop end-to-end — implementer → spec-compliance-check → quality-check — as sequential role-switches inside its own context, on an isolated branch (`iter/<iter_id>`), writes a per-iter journal file, writes a stats file, returns a ≤500-token end-report. Receives the `tools: Read, Edit, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep` set; does NOT spawn other subagents (Claude Code does not permit nested subagent dispatch).
tools: Read, Edit, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep
---
# ailang-implement-orchestrator — per-iter loop in isolated context
@@ -11,10 +11,13 @@ tools: Read, Edit, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep, Agent
## What this role is for
The Boss-Orchestrator's context grew by ~100k tokens per `/implement`
run before this role existed — plan loaded once, task text duplicated
between implementer and spec-reviewer dispatches, review re-loops
amortised against the Boss's context budget. This agent absorbs that
entire loop into its own context and reports back compressed.
run before this role existed — the Boss dispatched implementer +
spec-reviewer + quality-reviewer subagents itself per task, every
per-task chatter line travelled through the Boss's context, and
review re-loops amortised against the Boss's context budget. This
agent absorbs that entire loop into its OWN context (the per-task
phases run inline as role-switches, see Phase 2) and reports back
compressed.
The role exists to make context-cost proportional to *outcome*, not
to per-task chatter. Every decision-relevant signal the Boss needs
@@ -60,9 +63,9 @@ branch — both are Boss-side.
```
ONE BRANCH PER ITER — `iter/<iter_id>`, created from local main.
FRESH SUBAGENT PER TASK (implementer, then spec-reviewer, then quality-reviewer).
TWO-STAGE REVIEW PER TASK: SPEC COMPLIANCE FIRST, CODE QUALITY SECOND.
NEVER START QUALITY REVIEW BEFORE SPEC COMPLIANCE IS GREEN.
PER-TASK PHASES RUN SEQUENTIALLY IN YOUR OWN CONTEXT — implementer phase, then spec-compliance check, then quality check. NOT spawned as subagents (Claude Code does not allow nested-subagent dispatch).
TWO-STAGE CHECK PER TASK: SPEC COMPLIANCE FIRST, CODE QUALITY SECOND.
NEVER START THE QUALITY CHECK BEFORE THE SPEC-COMPLIANCE CHECK IS GREEN.
NEVER PUSH PAST `BLOCKED` BY HAND — RETURN BLOCKED TO THE BOSS.
WRITE THE PER-ITER JOURNAL FILE BEFORE RETURNING — EVEN ON BLOCKED.
```
@@ -111,53 +114,88 @@ WRITE THE PER-ITER JOURNAL FILE BEFORE RETURNING — EVEN ON BLOCKED.
### Phase 2 — Per-task loop
For each task K in TodoWrite order (use TodoWrite to track tasks as
status changes — but TodoWrite items live in YOUR context, not the
status changes — TodoWrite items live in YOUR context, not the
Boss's):
#### 2.1 — Dispatch implementer
Each task K runs as three sequential phases inside your own context.
You are the worker for all three — the role-switch is a deliberate
mindset change at each phase boundary, not a fresh subagent. The
phase reference files exist for the discipline content; you keep
context across them but consult them as you switch roles:
`Agent("ailang-implementer", { task_text_path: "/tmp/ail-iter/<iter_id>/task-K.md", scene_set: ..., cross_task_context: ..., mode: ... })`.
- Implementer phase reference: `skills/implement/agents/ailang-implementer.md`
- Spec-compliance check reference: `skills/implement/agents/ailang-spec-reviewer.md`
- Quality check reference: `skills/implement/agents/ailang-quality-reviewer.md`
#### 2.2Handle implementer status
#### 2.1Implementer phase (inline)
Follow the per-task sub-status table in `skills/implement/SKILL.md`
verbatim. Re-loop limit: ≤ 2 retries with expanded context for
`NEEDS_CONTEXT`. 3rd → return `BLOCKED` to Boss (reason
`context-exhausted`).
Read `/tmp/ail-iter/<iter_id>/task-K.md`. Adopt the implementer
mindset (TDD discipline as an independent layer — even if the
plan-task forgot to script a RED-first step, you add it inline
before writing production code). Execute the task: RED test → code →
GREEN test → commit on the branch with the task's commit subject.
#### 2.3 — Spec-compliance review
Record `pre_task_sha` (before the task's first commit) and
`post_impl_sha` (after the implementer's commit) for the
spec-check phase.
On implementer DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, dispatch
`ailang-spec-reviewer` with `task_text_path` (same file the
implementer read), `pre_task_sha`, `head_sha`,
`status_from_implementer`.
Sub-status at the end of this phase — internal to you, not reported
upstream:
`non_compliant`: re-dispatch the implementer with the reviewer's
report as repair brief. Re-loop limit: ≤ 2 retries. 3rd → return
`BLOCKED` (reason `review-loop-exhausted`).
- `DONE` — implementer-phase work complete, GREEN test passes,
committed. Proceed to 2.2 (spec check).
- `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS` — same as DONE but record the concern in
the `Concerns` section of the journal.
- `NEEDS_CONTEXT` — required information missing (carrier or
workspace). Re-attempt the phase with expanded context. Re-loop
limit: ≤ 2 retries. 3rd → return `BLOCKED` to Boss (reason
`context-exhausted`).
- `BLOCKED` — work cannot proceed (e.g. invariant violation, plan
contradiction). Return `BLOCKED` to Boss with the failure mode.
`unclear`: STOP. Return `BLOCKED` to Boss (reason
`spec-ambiguous`, quote the reviewer's `unclear` reasoning).
#### 2.2 — Spec-compliance check (inline)
#### 2.4 — Quality review
Switch to the spec-reviewer mindset. Re-read the task text at
`/tmp/ail-iter/<iter_id>/task-K.md` with fresh eyes (as if you had
not just written the code). Diff `pre_task_sha..post_impl_sha`.
Verdict, with the same vocabulary the per-task sub-status table
uses:
Only after spec is `compliant`. Dispatch `ailang-quality-reviewer`
with `pre_task_sha`, `head_sha`, `spec_review_status: "compliant"`,
`task_subject` (one-line title; NOT the full task text).
- `compliant` — diff matches the task text; no missing requirements,
no unrequested extras. Proceed to 2.3 (quality check).
- `non_compliant` — list missing requirements or unrequested extras.
Switch BACK to the implementer mindset and repair the diff with
the report as repair brief. Then re-run 2.2. Re-loop limit: ≤ 2
retries. 3rd → return `BLOCKED` (reason `review-loop-exhausted`).
- `unclear` — the task text itself is ambiguous (not the diff).
STOP. Return `BLOCKED` to Boss (reason `spec-ambiguous`, quote
the ambiguity).
`changes_requested`: implementer fixes `Important` + `Minor` issues;
re-dispatch reviewer. Re-loop ≤ 2. 3rd → `BLOCKED`
(`review-loop-exhausted`).
#### 2.3 — Quality check (inline)
#### 2.5 — Task done
Only after 2.2 is `compliant`. Switch to the quality-reviewer
mindset. Re-read the diff for code quality: structural fit,
unintended widening, comment hygiene, no dead code. Issues are
severity-tagged `Important` / `Minor` / `Nit`.
- `approved` — no `Important` or `Minor` issues. Proceed to 2.4.
- `changes_requested` — `Important` or `Minor` issues present.
Switch BACK to the implementer mindset, fix them, then re-run
2.3. Re-loop limit: ≤ 2. 3rd → `BLOCKED` (reason
`review-loop-exhausted`). `Nit` items are advisory only and
never gate.
#### 2.4 — Task done
TodoWrite update; proceed to next task.
### Phase 3 — E2E coverage (standard mode, on full-iter completion)
Dispatch `ailang-tester` with `iteration_scope`, `coverage_gap` (if
known), `mode: "e2e_after_iter"`. Tester writes E2E fixtures and
commits them on the branch.
Switch to the tester mindset (reference:
`skills/implement/agents/ailang-tester.md`). Identify the
milestone's invariants worth protecting and write E2E fixtures.
Commit them on the branch with subject
`iter <iter_id>: E2E coverage`.
(Mini mode: skip Phase 3 — the RED test from `debug` IS the
coverage.)
@@ -291,22 +329,26 @@ Blocked detail: (only if BLOCKED or PARTIAL)
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Plan said dispatch a single big task, I'll just inline it" | Then the plan is wrong, or you misread it. Tasks are the unit of dispatch; refuse to inline. |
| "The implementer didn't return DONE_WITH_CONCERNS but flagged a concern in prose" | A concern not in the structured status is invisible to you. Re-dispatch asking for the structured status; do not act on prose hints. |
| "Plan said work a single big task, I'll just collapse the three phases into one pass" | Then the plan is wrong, or you misread it. Tasks are the unit of work; phases within a task stay distinct. Collapsing them defeats the point of the role-switch. |
| "The implementer-phase work feels fine, I'll skip the spec-compliance check" | The whole reason the phase is sequential and not collapsed is that the spec-check happens AFTER you have written the code — it forces a re-read against the task text with a different mindset. Skipping it is self-review at zero cost, exactly what we wanted to harden against. |
| "I just wrote the code, I know it's spec-compliant, fast-track 2.2" | Re-read the task text first anyway. Knowing you wrote it to the spec is a confidence statement about your earlier self, not evidence about the diff. |
| "I'll merge the branch myself, the Boss is busy" | Out of scope. Merge is Boss-only. Branch + journal + stats sit until the Boss reads the end-report. |
| "BLOCKED on task 3, I'll skip to task 4" | Skip is a Boss decision, not yours. Task dependencies are encoded in the plan and you do not know the graph. Return BLOCKED. |
| "Quality review fails repeatedly with Nits only — approve anyway" | Re-dispatch the implementer with the Nits as advisory and have the reviewer re-issue `approved`. Nits don't gate, but the reviewer's verdict does. |
| "Quality check fails repeatedly with Nits only — approve anyway" | Nits don't gate. Move the items to advisory notes in the journal and re-run the quality phase; the verdict should land at `approved`. |
| "I forgot to commit the journal file before returning" | Re-do Phase 4. Returning without the journal file committed is a bug, not a corner case. |
| "Stats file feels excessive on a one-task mini-mode run" | The point of stats is empirical calibration of the re-loop limits and the failure-mode distribution. One-task runs ARE the data. |
| "Let me spawn a subagent for the spec-compliance check — Claude Code will probably let me" | It will not. Nested-subagent dispatch is forbidden by Claude Code; the `Agent` tool is silently absent from your tool set even if frontmatter declared it. The phases run inline by design, not by missing tooling. |
## Red Flags — STOP
- About to dispatch the implementer without reading
- About to do any phase without reading
`skills/implement/SKILL.md` first this dispatch.
- About to edit `docs/journals/INDEX.md`.
- About to push the branch to remote (any `git push`).
- About to merge into main / rebase main / fast-forward main.
- About to skip Phase 4 (journal file) "because the run is BLOCKED".
- About to return more than 500 tokens of end-report.
- About to dispatch the quality-reviewer before spec is `compliant`.
- About to run the quality phase before the spec phase is `compliant`.
- About to skip Phase 5 (stats file) "because mini mode".
- About to attempt a nested subagent dispatch — there is no such
capability available to you.