Orchestration Pattern Selection
Make a deliberate choice between a fixed workflow and a self-directing setup, judged against named criteria, before any agent graph is written in code.
Description
Before you wire agents together, decide how they will be coordinated. There are two families. In a Workflow the steps are fixed and you can see the control flow, such as run in order, branch on a condition, or fan out in parallel. In an Autonomous setup the agents decide the flow themselves, such as planning, handing off, or chatting as a group. Compare the two on a few things: how predictable they are, how fast, how easy to observe, how much they cost, and how they tend to fail. Pick the simplest one that does the job. If neither family fits on its own, mix them. You can wrap a fixed workflow around an autonomous core, or drop autonomous agents inside workflow stages. The common mistake is to skip this comparison and reach straight for full autonomy. That gives you an agent graph nobody can watch or debug.
When to apply
Use this when you design a multi-agent system from scratch. Also use it when an existing system fails in ways its current coordination cannot handle. Apply it when you can name the task but cannot yet defend one topology over the others. Don't apply it for a single agent with one tool, because there is no coordination choice to make. One exception: if your platform forces one family, such as a strict workflow engine or a swarm-only runtime, then you only choose within that family.
What it involves
- Classify candidate orchestrations into the taxonomy
- Score against comparative criteria
- Apply selection criteria
- Compose hybrids when no single pattern fits
- Document the rejected alternatives
Open the full interactive page →
Diagram, neighbourhood map, code examples, related patterns and full provenance.