/dispatching-parallel-agents

name: dispatching-parallel-agents
description: Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies

<!-- Adapted from obra/superpowers dispatching-parallel-agents skill (v5.0.7), MIT-licensed, copyright 2025 Jesse Vincent. Modifications copyright 2026 Joe Amditis. v0.5.0 ports as a consumer category, no research phase per the v0.2.0 architecture, since dispatching parallel agents is a fan-out utility called by other skills whose research conclusions already determined that parallelism applies. See CREDITS.md. -->

Dispatching Parallel Agents

Overview

You delegate tasks to a subagent or parallel worker if your client supports one. Give each worker isolated, focused context. They should never inherit your session's context or history, you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work. If the client does not support workers, do the same tasks in sequence in the current session.

When you have multiple unrelated failures (different test files, different subsystems, different bugs), investigating them sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel.

**Core principle:** Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently.

When to Use

digraph when_to_use {
    "Multiple failures?" [shape=diamond];
    "Are they independent?" [shape=diamond];
    "Single agent investigates all" [shape=box];
    "One agent per problem domain" [shape=box];
    "Can they work in parallel?" [shape=diamond];
    "Sequential agents" [shape=box];
    "Parallel dispatch" [shape=box];

    "Multiple failures?" -> "Are they independent?" [label="yes"];
    "Are they independent?" -> "Single agent investigates all" [label="no - related"];
    "Are they independent?" -> "Can they work in parallel?" [label="yes"];
    "Can they work in parallel?" -> "Parallel dispatch" [label="yes"];
    "Can they work in parallel?" -> "Sequential agents" [label="no - shared state"];
}

**Use when:**

• 3+ test files failing with different root causes
• Multiple subsystems broken independently
• Each problem can be understood without context from others
• No shared state between investigations

**Don't use when:**

• Failures are related (fix one might fix others)
• Need to understand full system state
• Agents would interfere with each other

The Pattern

1. Identify Independent Domains

Group failures by what's broken:

• File A tests: Tool approval flow
• File B tests: Batch completion behavior
• File C tests: Abort functionality

Each domain is independent - fixing tool approval doesn't affect abort tests.

2. Create Focused Agent Tasks

Each agent gets:

• **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem
• **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass
• **Constraints:** Don't change other code
• **Expected output:** Summary of what you found and fixed

3. Dispatch in Parallel

Worker A: Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures.
Worker B: Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures.
Worker C: Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures.

Start all three with the client's parallel worker capability.

4. Review and Integrate

When agents return:

• Read each summary
• Verify fixes don't conflict
• Run full test suite
• Integrate all changes

Agent Prompt Structure

Good agent prompts are: 1. **Focused** - One clear problem domain 2. **Self-contained** - All context needed to understand the problem 3. **Specific about output** - What should the agent return?

Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts:

1. "should abort tool with partial output capture" - expects 'interrupted at' in message
2. "should handle mixed completed and aborted tools" - fast tool aborted instead of completed
3. "should properly track pendingToolCount" - expects 3 results but gets 0

These are timing/race condition issues. Your task:

1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies
2. Identify root cause - timing issues or actual bugs?
3. Fix by:
   - Replacing arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting
   - Fixing bugs in abort implementation if found
   - Adjusting test expectations if testing changed behavior

Do NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue.

Return: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.

Common Mistakes

**❌ Too broad:** "Fix all the tests" - agent gets lost **✅ Specific:** "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts" - focused scope

**❌ No context:** "Fix the race condition" - agent doesn't know where **✅ Context:** Paste the error messages and test names

**❌ No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything **✅ Constraints:** "Do NOT change production code" or "Fix tests only"

**❌ Vague output:** "Fix it" - you don't know what changed **✅ Specific:** "Return summary of root cause and changes"

When NOT to Use

**Related failures:** Fixing one might fix others - investigate together first **Need full context:** Understanding requires seeing entire system **Exploratory debugging:** You don't know what's broken yet **Shared state:** Agents would interfere (editing same files, using same resources)

Real Example from Session

**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring

**Failures:**

• agent-tool-abort.test.ts: 3 failures (timing issues)
• batch-completion-behavior.test.ts: 2 failures (tools not executing)
• tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts: 1 failure (execution count = 0)

**Decision:** Independent domains - abort logic separate from batch completion separate from race conditions

**Dispatch:**

Agent 1 → Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts
Agent 2 → Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts
Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts

**Results:**

• Agent 1: Replaced timeouts with event-based waiting
• Agent 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)
• Agent 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete

**Integration