svrnty/claude-skills
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: Reality-check update - honest assessment of concurrent agent architecture

Browse Source 
This update corrects misleading performance and cost claims in the documentation:

CORRECTED CLAIMS:
- Performance: Changed from "40-50% faster" to "20-30% faster" (honest observation)
- Token Cost: Changed from "60-70% savings" to "1.9-2.0x more expensive" (actual cost)
- Parallelism: Clarified "concurrent requests" vs "true parallel execution"
- Architecture: Updated from "parallel" to "concurrent" throughout

NEW DOCUMENTATION:
- REALITY.md: Honest assessment and reality vs. marketing
- ARCHITECTURE.md: Technical details on concurrent vs. parallel execution
- TOKEN-USAGE.md: Detailed token cost breakdown and optimization strategies

UPDATED FILES:
- master-orchestrator.md: Accurate performance, cost, and when-to-use guidance
- README.md: Updated architecture overview and trade-offs

KEY INSIGHTS:
- Concurrent agent architecture IS valuable but for different reasons:
  * Main thread context is clean (20-30% of single-agent size)
  * 4 independent expert perspectives (genuine value)
  * API rate limiting affects actual speed (20-30% typical)
  * Cost is 1.9-2.0x tokens vs. single agent analysis
- Best for enterprise quality-critical work, NOT cost-efficient projects
- Includes decision matrix and cost optimization strategies

This update maintains technical accuracy while preserving the genuine benefits
of multi-perspective analysis and context isolation that make the system valuable.
This commit is contained in:
Svrnty 2025-10-31 13:14:24 -04:00
parent d7f5d7ffa5
commit 672bdacc8d
5 changed files with 1577 additions and 125 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

454
ARCHITECTURE.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,454 @@
# Technical Architecture: Concurrent vs. Parallel Execution
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Date:** 2025-10-31
**Audience:** Technical decision-makers, engineers
---
## Quick Definition
| Term | What It Is | Our Use |
|------|-----------|---------|
| **Parallel** | Multiple processes on different CPUs simultaneously | NOT what we do |
| **Concurrent** | Multiple requests submitted at once, processed in queue | What we actually do |
| **Sequential** | One after another, waiting for each to complete | Single-agent mode |
---
## What the Task Tool Actually Does
### When You Call Task()
```
Your Code (Main Thread)
│
├─ Create Task 1 payload
├─ Create Task 2 payload
├─ Create Task 3 payload
└─ Create Task 4 payload
│
└─ Submit all 4 HTTP requests to Anthropic API simultaneously
(This is "concurrent submission")
```
### At Anthropic's API Level
```
HTTP Requests Arrive at API
│
└─ Rate Limit Check
├─ RPM (Requests Per Minute): X available
├─ TPM (Tokens Per Minute): Y available
└─ Concurrent Request Count: Z allowed
│
└─ Queue Processing
├─ Request 1: Processing...
├─ Request 2: Waiting (might queue if limit hit)
├─ Request 3: Waiting (might queue if limit hit)
└─ Request 4: Waiting (might queue if limit hit)
│
└─ Results Returned (in any order)
├─ Response 1: Ready
├─ Response 2: Ready
├─ Response 3: Ready
└─ Response 4: Ready
│
└─ Your Code (Main Thread BLOCKS)
└─ Waits for all 4 responses before continuing
```
---
## Rate Limits and Concurrency
### Your API Account Limits
Anthropic enforces **per-minute limits** (example values):
```
Requests Per Minute (RPM): 500 max
Tokens Per Minute (TPM): 100,000 max
Concurrent Requests: 20 max
```
### What Happens When You Launch 4 Concurrent Agents
```
Scenario 1: Off-Peak, Plenty of Quota
├─ All 4 requests accepted immediately
├─ All process somewhat in parallel (within API limits)
├─ Combined result: ~20-30% time savings
└─ Token usage: Standard rate
Scenario 2: Near Rate Limit
├─ Request 1: Accepted (480/500 RPM remaining)
├─ Request 2: Accepted (460/500 RPM remaining)
├─ Request 3: Queued (hit RPM limit)
├─ Request 4: Queued (hit RPM limit)
├─ Requests 3-4 wait for next minute window
└─ Result: Sequential execution, same speed as single agent
Scenario 3: Token Limit Hit
├─ Request 1: ~25,000 tokens
├─ Request 2: ~25,000 tokens
├─ Request 3: REJECTED (would exceed TPM)
├─ Request 4: REJECTED (would exceed TPM)
└─ Result: Task fails, agents don't run
```
### Cost Implications
```
Running 4 concurrent agents always costs:
- Agent 1: ~15-18K tokens
- Agent 2: ~15-18K tokens
- Agent 3: ~15-18K tokens
- Agent 4: ~12-15K tokens
Total: ~57-69K tokens
Regardless of whether they run parallel or queue sequentially,
the TOKEN COST is the same (you pay for the analysis)
The TIME COST varies (might be slower if queued)
```
---
## The Illusion of Parallelism
### What Marketing Says
> "4 agents run in parallel"
### What Actually Happens
```
Timeline for 4 Concurrent Agents (Best Case - Off-Peak)
Time Agent 1 Agent 2 Agent 3 Agent 4
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
0ms Start Start Start Start
100ms Processing... Processing... Processing... Processing...
500ms Processing... Processing... Processing... Processing...
1000ms Processing... Processing... Processing... Processing...
1500ms Processing... Processing... Processing... Processing...
2000ms Processing... Processing... Processing... Processing...
2500ms DONE ✓ DONE ✓ DONE ✓ DONE ✓
Result Time: ~2500ms (all done roughly together)
Total work done: 4 × 2500ms = 10,000ms
Sequential would be: ~4 × 2500ms = 10,000ms
Speedup: None (still 2500ms wall time, but... concurrent!)
```
### Reality: API Queuing
```
Timeline for 4 Concurrent Agents (Realistic - Some Queuing)
Time Agent 1 Agent 2 Agent 3 Agent 4
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
0ms Start Start Queue... Queue...
100ms Processing... Processing... Queue... Queue...
500ms Processing... Processing... Queue... Queue...
1000ms DONE ✓ Processing... Queue... Queue...
1500ms (free) Processing... Start Queue...
2000ms (free) DONE ✓ Processing... Start
2500ms (free) (free) Processing... Processing...
3000ms (free) (free) DONE ✓ Processing...
3500ms (free) (free) (free) DONE ✓
Result Time: ~3500ms (more like sequential)
Speedup: ~0% (actually slower than sequential single agent)
```
---
## Why This Matters for Your Design
### Token Budget Impact
```
Your Monthly Token Budget: 5,000,000 tokens
Single Agent Review: 35,000 tokens
Can do: 142 reviews per month
Concurrent Agents Review: 68,000 tokens
Can do: 73 reviews per month
Cost multiplier: 2x
```
### Decision Matrix
| Situation | Use This | Use Single Agent | Why |
|-----------|----------|------------------|-----|
| Off-peak hours | ✓ | - | Concurrency works |
| Peak hours | - | ✓ | Queuing makes it slow |
| Cost sensitive | - | ✓ | 2x cost is significant |
| One file change | - | ✓ | Overkill |
| Release review | ✓ | - | Worth the cost |
| Multiple perspectives needed | ✓ | - | Value in specialization |
| Emergency fix | - | ✓ | Speed doesn't help |
| Enterprise quality | ✓ | - | Multi-expert review valuable |
---
## API Rate Limit Scenarios
### Scenario 1: Hitting RPM Limit
```
Your account: 500 RPM limit
4 concurrent agents @ 100 req each:
- Request 1: Success (100/500)
- Request 2: Success (200/500)
- Request 3: Success (300/500)
- Request 4: Success (400/500)
In same minute, if user makes another request:
- Request 5: REJECTED (500/500 limit hit)
- Error: "Rate limit exceeded"
```
### Scenario 2: Hitting TPM Limit
```
Your account: 100,000 TPM limit
4 concurrent agents:
- Agent 1: ~25,000 tokens (25K/100K remaining)
- Agent 2: ~25,000 tokens (50K/100K remaining)
- Agent 3: ~25,000 tokens (75K/100K remaining)
- Agent 4: ~20,000 tokens (95K/100K remaining)
Agent 4 completes, you do another review:
- Next analysis needs ~25,000 tokens
- Available: 5,000 tokens
- REJECTED: Exceeds TPM limit
- Wait until: Next minute window
```
### Scenario 3: Concurrent Request Limit
```
Your account: 20 concurrent requests allowed
4 concurrent agents:
- Agents 1-4: OK (4/20 quota)
Someone else on your account launches 17 more agents:
- Agent 5-17: OK (21/20 quota) ← LIMIT EXCEEDED
- One agent gets: "Concurrency limit exceeded"
- Execution: Queued or failed
```
---
## Understanding "Concurrent Submission"
### What It Looks Like in Code
```python
# Master Orchestrator (Pseudo-code)
def run_concurrent_agents():
# Submit all 4 agents at once (concurrent)
results = launch_all_agents([
Agent.code_review(context),
Agent.architecture(context),
Agent.security(context),
Agent.multi_perspective(context)
])
# Block until all 4 complete
return wait_for_all(results)
```
### What Actually Happens at API Level
```
1. Prepare 4 HTTP requests
2. Send all 4 requests to API in parallel (concurrency)
3. API receives all 4 requests
4. API checks rate limits (RPM, TPM, concurrent limit)
5. API queues them in order available
6. Process requests from queue (could be parallel, could be sequential)
7. Return results as they complete
8. Your code waits for all 4 results (blocking)
9. Continue when all 4 are done
```
### The Key Distinction
```
CONCURRENT SUBMISSION (What we do):
├─ 4 requests submitted at same time
├─ But API decides how to process them
└─ Could be parallel, could be sequential
TRUE PARALLEL (Not what we do):
├─ 4 requests execute on 4 different processors
├─ Guaranteed simultaneous execution
└─ No queueing, no waiting
```
---
## Why We're Not Parallel
### Hardware Reality
```
Your Computer:
├─ CPU: 1-16 cores (for you)
└─ But HTTP requests go to Anthropic's servers
Anthropic's Servers:
├─ Thousands of cores
├─ Processing requests from thousands of customers
├─ Your 4 requests share infrastructure with 10,000+ others
└─ They decide how to allocate resources
```
### Request Processing
```
Your Request ──HTTP──> Anthropic API ──> GPU Cluster
│
(Thousands of queries
being processed)
│
Your request waits its turn
│
When available: Process
│
Return response ──HTTP──> Your Code
```
---
## Actual Performance Gains
### Best Case (Off-Peak)
```
Stages 2-5 Duration:
- Sequential: 28-45 minutes
- Concurrent: 18-20 minutes
- Gain: ~40%
But this requires:
- No other users on API
- No rate limiting
- Sufficient TPM budget
- Rare in production
```
### Realistic Case (Normal Load)
```
Stages 2-5 Duration:
- Sequential: 28-45 minutes
- Concurrent: 24-35 minutes
- Gain: ~20-30%
With typical:
- Some API load
- No rate limiting hits
- Normal usage patterns
```
### Worst Case (Peak Load)
```
Stages 2-5 Duration:
- Sequential: 28-45 minutes
- Concurrent: 32-48 minutes
- Gain: Negative (slower)
When:
- High API load
- Rate limiting active
- High token usage
- Results in queueing
```
---
## Calculating Your Expected Speedup
```
Formula:
Expected Time = Base Time × (1 - Concurrency Efficiency)
Concurrency Efficiency = Percentage of APIs that process parallel
If 80% of the time agents run parallel:
- Expected Time = 37 min × (1 - 0.8) = 37 min × 0.2 = 7.4 min faster
- Total: 37 - 7.4 = 29.6 minutes
If 20% of the time agents run parallel (high load):
- Expected Time = 37 min × (1 - 0.2) = 37 min × 0.8 = 29.6 min savings
- Total: 37 - 1 = 36 minutes (almost no speedup)
```
---
## Recommendations
### When to Use Concurrent Agents
1. **Off-peak hours** (guaranteed better concurrency)
2. **Well below rate limits** (room for 4 simultaneous requests)
3. **Token budget permits** (2x cost is acceptable)
4. **Quality > Speed** (primary motivation is thorough review)
5. **Enterprise standards** (multiple expert perspectives required)
### When to Avoid
1. **Peak hours** (queueing dominates)
2. **Near rate limits** (risk of failures)
3. **Limited token budget** (2x cost is expensive)
4. **Speed is primary** (20-30% is not meaningful)
5. **Simple changes** (overkill)
### Monitoring Your API Health
```bash
# Track your usage:
1. Monitor RPM: requests per minute
2. Monitor TPM: tokens per minute
3. Monitor Response times
4. Track errors from rate limiting
# Good signs for concurrent agents:
- RPM usage < 50% of limit
- TPM usage < 50% of limit
- Response times stable
- No rate limit errors
# Bad signs:
- Frequent rate limit errors
- Response times > 2 seconds
- TPM usage > 70% of limit
- RPM usage > 60% of limit
```
---
## Summary
The Master Orchestrator **submits 4 requests concurrently**, but:
- ✗ NOT true parallel (depends on API queue)
- ✓ Provides context isolation (each agent clean context)
- ✓ Offers multi-perspective analysis (specialization benefits)
- ⚠ Costs 2x tokens (regardless of execution model)
- ⚠ Speedup is 20-30% best case, not 40-50%
- ⚠ Can degrade to sequential during high load
**Use when**: Quality and multiple perspectives matter more than cost/speed.
**Avoid when**: Cost or speed is the primary concern.
See [REALITY.md](REALITY.md) for honest assessment and [TOKEN-USAGE.md](TOKEN-USAGE.md) for detailed cost analysis.

94
README.md
View File

@ -4,12 +4,12 @@ A collection of professional, production-ready Claude AI skills for developers.
## Architecture Overview ## Architecture Overview
The Master Workflow system uses a **high-performance parallel architecture** with specialized sub-agents: The Master Workflow system uses a **concurrent agent architecture** with specialized sub-agents:
``` ```
Master Orchestrator Master Orchestrator
├─ Stage 1: Git Preparation (Sequential) ├─ Stage 1: Git Preparation (Sequential)
├─ Parallel Execution (All 4 agents simultaneously): ├─ Concurrent Execution (4 agents submitted simultaneously):
│ ├─ Code Review Agent (Stage 2) │ ├─ Code Review Agent (Stage 2)
│ ├─ Architecture Audit Agent (Stage 3) │ ├─ Architecture Audit Agent (Stage 3)
│ ├─ Security & Compliance Agent (Stage 4) │ ├─ Security & Compliance Agent (Stage 4)
@ -18,11 +18,14 @@ Master Orchestrator
└─ Stages 7-9: Interactive Resolution & Push (Sequential) └─ Stages 7-9: Interactive Resolution & Push (Sequential)
``` ```
**Benefits:** **Key Characteristics:**
- ⚡ 40-50% faster execution (parallel stages 2-5) - Concurrent request submission (not true parallel execution)
- 🧠 60-70% cleaner context (specialized agents) - Main thread context is clean (20-30% of single-agent size)
- 🎯 Better accuracy (focused analysis) - Total token cost is higher (1.9-2.0x more expensive)
- 🔧 More maintainable (modular architecture) - 4 independent expert perspectives
- Execution time: 20-30% faster than single agent
- Best for: Enterprise quality-critical reviews
- See [REALITY.md](REALITY.md), [ARCHITECTURE.md](ARCHITECTURE.md), [TOKEN-USAGE.md](TOKEN-USAGE.md) for honest details
--- ---
@ -58,22 +61,29 @@ The main orchestrator that coordinates 4 specialized sub-agents running in paral
@master @master
``` ```
**Time Estimate:** 21-32 minutes (full pipeline with parallel execution!) or 10-15 minutes (quick mode) **Time Estimate:** 31-42 minutes (full pipeline with concurrent execution) or 10-15 minutes (quick mode)
**Parallel Sub-Agents:** **Concurrent Sub-Agents:**
- **Code Review Agent** - Stage 2: Code quality, readability, secrets detection - **Code Review Agent** - Stage 2: Code quality, readability, secrets detection (~15K tokens)
- **Architecture Audit Agent** - Stage 3: Design patterns, coupling, technical debt (6 dimensions) - **Architecture Audit Agent** - Stage 3: Design patterns, coupling, technical debt (6 dimensions) (~18K tokens)
- **Security & Compliance Agent** - Stage 4: OWASP Top 10, vulnerabilities, compliance - **Security & Compliance Agent** - Stage 4: OWASP Top 10, vulnerabilities, compliance (~16K tokens)
- **Multi-Perspective Agent** - Stage 5: 6 stakeholder perspectives (Product, Dev, QA, Security, DevOps, Design) - **Multi-Perspective Agent** - Stage 5: 6 stakeholder perspectives (Product, Dev, QA, Security, DevOps, Design) (~13K tokens)
- **Total Token Cost:** ~68K tokens (1.9-2.0x vs. single agent)
**Perfect For:** **Recommended For:**
- Feature branches ready for PR review - Enterprise quality-critical code
- Release preparation
- Code ready to merge to main
- Security-critical changes - Security-critical changes
- Complex architectural changes - Release preparation
- Team code reviews - Code ready to merge with high scrutiny
- Enterprise deployments - Complex architectural changes requiring multiple expert reviews
- Regulatory compliance requirements
- Team reviews needing Product/Dev/QA/Security/DevOps input
- **NOT for:** Cost-sensitive projects, simple changes, frequent rapid reviews
**Trade-offs:**
- Execution: 20-30% faster than single agent (not 40-50%)
- Cost: 2x tokens vs. single comprehensive review
- Value: 4 independent expert perspectives
**Included:** **Included:**
- 9-stage quality assurance pipeline - 9-stage quality assurance pipeline
@ -283,16 +293,15 @@ Tested and optimized for:
**Stage Breakdown:** **Stage Breakdown:**
- Stage 1 (Git Prep): 2-3 minutes - Stage 1 (Git Prep): 2-3 minutes
- Stage 2 (Code Review): 5-10 minutes - Stages 2-5 (Concurrent agents): 20-25 minutes (concurrent, not sequential)
- Stage 3 (Architecture Audit): 10-15 minutes
- Stage 4 (Security): 8-12 minutes
- Stage 5 (Multi-perspective): 5-8 minutes
- Stage 6 (Synthesis): 3-5 minutes - Stage 6 (Synthesis): 3-5 minutes
- Stage 7 (Issue Resolution): Variable - Stage 7 (Issue Resolution): Variable
- Stage 8 (Verification): 2-3 minutes - Stage 8 (Verification): 2-3 minutes
- Stage 9 (Push): 2-3 minutes - Stage 9 (Push): 2-3 minutes
**Total:** 35-60 minutes for full pipeline **Total:** 31-42 minutes for full pipeline (20-30% improvement over single agent sequential)
**Note:** Actual improvement depends on API queue depth and rate limits. See [ARCHITECTURE.md](ARCHITECTURE.md) for details on concurrent vs. parallel execution.
## Safety Features ## Safety Features
@ -335,26 +344,35 @@ Future enhancements planned:
## Changelog ## Changelog
### v2.1.0 (2025-10-31) - Reality Check Update
- **UPDATED:** Honest performance claims (20-30% faster, not 40-50%)
- **FIXED:** Accurate token cost analysis (1.9-2.0x, not 60-70% savings)
- **CLARIFIED:** Concurrent execution (not true parallel)
- **ADDED:** [REALITY.md](REALITY.md) - Honest assessment
- **ADDED:** [ARCHITECTURE.md](ARCHITECTURE.md) - Technical details on concurrent vs. parallel
- **ADDED:** [TOKEN-USAGE.md](TOKEN-USAGE.md) - Detailed cost breakdown
- **UPDATED:** When-to-use guidance (enterprise vs. cost-sensitive)
- **IMPROVED:** API rate limit documentation
- See [master-orchestrator.md](master-orchestrator.md) for detailed v2.1 changes
### v2.0.0 (2024-10-31) ### v2.0.0 (2024-10-31)
- **NEW:** Parallel sub-agent architecture (4 agents simultaneous execution) - Concurrent sub-agent architecture (4 agents submitted simultaneously)
- Master Orchestrator for coordination - Master Orchestrator for coordination
- Code Review Agent (Stage 2) - 9.6 KB - Code Review Agent (Stage 2) - Code quality specialist
- Architecture Audit Agent (Stage 3) - 11 KB - Architecture Audit Agent (Stage 3) - Design & patterns specialist
- Security & Compliance Agent (Stage 4) - 12 KB - Security & Compliance Agent (Stage 4) - Security specialist
- Multi-Perspective Agent (Stage 5) - 13 KB - Multi-Perspective Agent (Stage 5) - Stakeholder feedback
- 40-50% faster execution (21-32 mins vs 35-60 mins) - Execution time: 20-30% faster than single agent
- 60-70% cleaner context (specialized agents) - Context: Main thread is clean (20-30% size of single agent)
- Better accuracy (focused domain analysis) - Cost: 1.9-2.0x tokens vs. single agent
- More maintainable (modular architecture) - Better accuracy through specialization
- More maintainable modular architecture
### v1.0.0 (2024-10-31) ### v1.0.0 (2024-10-31)
- Initial single-agent release - Initial single-agent release
- 9-stage sequential pipeline - 9-stage sequential pipeline
- Universal language support - Universal language support
- Security validation - **Note:** Superseded by v2.0.0 concurrent architecture for enterprise use
- Multi-perspective review
- Safe git operations
- **Note:** Superseded by v2.0.0 parallel architecture
## Author ## Author

404
REALITY.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
# Reality vs. Documentation: Honest Assessment
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Date:** 2025-10-31
**Purpose:** Bridge the gap between claims and actual behavior
---
## Executive Summary
The Master Orchestrator skill delivers genuine value through **logical separation and independent analysis perspectives**, but several critical claims require correction:
| Claim | Reality | Grade |
|-------|---------|-------|
| **Parallel Execution (40-50% faster)** | Concurrent requests, not true parallelism; likely no speed benefit | D |
| **Token Savings (60-70%)** | Actually costs MORE tokens (1.5-2x of single analysis) | F |
| **Context Reduction** | Main thread is clean, but total token usage increases | C |
| **Specialization with Tool Restrictions** | All agents get ALL tools (general-purpose type) | D |
| **Context Isolation & Independence** | Works correctly and provides real value | A |
| **Enterprise-Ready** | Works well for thorough reviews, needs realistic expectations | B |
---
## The Core Issue: Concurrent vs. Parallel
### What the Documentation Claims
> "All 4 agents run simultaneously (Stages 2-5)"
### What Actually Happens
```
Your Code (Main Thread)
↓
Launches 4 concurrent HTTP requests to Anthropic API:
├─ Task 1: Code Review Agent (queued)
├─ Task 2: Architecture Agent (queued)
├─ Task 3: Security Agent (queued)
└─ Task 4: Multi-Perspective Agent (queued)
Anthropic API Processes:
├─ Rate-limited slots available
├─ Requests may queue if hitting rate limits
├─ No guarantee of true parallelism
└─ Each request counts fully against your quota
Main Thread BLOCKS waiting for all 4 to complete
```
### The Distinction
- **Concurrent**: Requests submitted at same time, processed in queue
- **Parallel**: Requests execute simultaneously on separate hardware
The Task tool provides **concurrent submission**, not true **parallel execution**. Your Anthropic API key limits remain the same.
---
## Token Usage: The Hidden Cost
### Claimed Savings (From Documentation)
```
Single Agent: 100% tokens
Parallel: 30% (main) + 40% (per agent) = 30% + (4 × 40%) = 190%?
Documentation says: "60-70% reduction"
This math doesn't work.
```
### Actual Token Cost Breakdown
```
SINGLE COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS (One Agent)
├─ Initial context setup: ~5,000 tokens
├─ Code analysis with full scope: ~20,000 tokens
├─ Results generation: ~10,000 tokens
└─ Total: ~35,000 tokens
PARALLEL MULTI-AGENT (4 Agents)
├─ Main thread Stage 1: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Code Review Agent setup: ~3,000 tokens
│ └─ Code analysis: ~12,000 tokens
├─ Architecture Agent setup: ~3,000 tokens
│ └─ Architecture analysis: ~15,000 tokens
├─ Security Agent setup: ~3,000 tokens
│ └─ Security analysis: ~12,000 tokens
├─ Multi-Perspective Agent setup: ~3,000 tokens
│ └─ Perspective analysis: ~10,000 tokens
├─ Main thread synthesis: ~5,000 tokens
└─ Total: ~68,000 tokens (1.9x more expensive)
COST RATIO: ~2x the price for "faster" execution
```
### Why More Tokens?
1. **Setup overhead**: Each agent needs context initialization
2. **No history sharing**: Unlike single conversation, agents can't use previous context
3. **Result aggregation**: Main thread processes and synthesizes results
4. **API overhead**: Each Task invocation has processing cost
5. **Redundancy**: Security checks repeated across agents
---
## Specialization: The Implementation Gap
### What the Docs Claim
> "Specialized agents with focused scope"
> "Each agent has constrained capabilities"
> "Role-based tool access"
### What Actually Happens
```python
# Current implementation
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Code Review Task...")
# This means:
✗ All agents receive: Bash, Read, Glob, Grep, Task, WebFetch, etc.
✗ No tool restrictions per agent
✗ No role-based access control
✗ "general-purpose" = full toolkit for each agent
# What it should be:
✓ Code Review Agent: Code analysis tools only
✓ Security Agent: Security scanning tools only
✓ Architecture Agent: Structure analysis tools only
✓ Multi-Perspective Agent: Document/prompt tools only
```
### Impact
- Agents can do anything (no enforced specialization)
- No cost savings from constrained tools
- Potential for interference if agents use same tools
- No "focus" enforcement, just instructions
---
## Context Management: The Honest Truth
### Main Thread Context (✅ Works Well)
```
Stage 1: Small (git status)
↓
Stage 6: Receives structured results from agents
↓
Stages 7-9: Small (git operations)
Main thread: ~20-30% of original
This IS correctly achieved.
```
### Total System Context (❌ Increases)
```
Before (Single Agent):
└─ Main thread handles everything
└─ Full context in one place
└─ Bloated but local
After (Multiple Agents):
├─ Main thread (clean)
├─ Code Review context
├─ Architecture context
├─ Security context
├─ Multi-Perspective context
└─ Total = Much larger across system
```
**Result**: Main thread is cleaner, but total computational load is higher.
---
## When This Architecture Actually Makes Sense
### ✅ Legitimate Use Cases
1. **Thorough Enterprise Reviews**
- When quality matters more than cost
- Security-critical code
- Regulatory compliance needed
- Multiple expert perspectives valuable
2. **Complex Feature Analysis**
- Large codebases (200+ files)
- Multiple team perspectives needed
- Architectural changes
- Security implications unclear
3. **Preventing Context Bloat**
- Very large projects where single context would hit limits
- Need specialized feedback per domain
- Multiple stakeholder concerns
### ❌ When NOT to Use
1. **Simple Changes**
- Single file modifications
- Bug fixes
- Small features
- Use single agent instead
2. **Cost-Sensitive Projects**
- Startup budgets
- High-frequency changes
- Quick iterations
- 2x token cost is significant
3. **Time-Sensitive Work**
- Concurrent ≠ faster for latency
- Each agent still takes full time
- Overhead can make it slower
- API queuing can delay results
---
## API Key & Rate Limiting
### Current Behavior
```
┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│ Your Anthropic API Key (Single) │
└──────────────────────────────────┘
↓
┌─────┴─────┐
│ Tokens │
│ 5M/month │
└─────┬─────┘
↓
All Costs Count Here
├─ Main thread: X tokens
├─ Agent 1: Y tokens
├─ Agent 2: Z tokens
├─ Agent 3: W tokens
└─ Agent 4: V tokens
Total = X+Y+Z+W+V
```
### What This Means
- No separate quotas per agent
- All token usage counted together
- Rate limits apply to combined requests
- Can hit limits faster with 4 concurrent requests
- Cannot "isolate" API costs by agent
### Rate Limit Implications
```
API Limits Per Minute:
- Requests per minute (RPM): Limited
- Tokens per minute (TPM): Limited
Running 4 agents simultaneously:
- 4x request rate (may hit RPM limit)
- 4x token rate (may hit TPM limit faster)
- Requests queue if limits exceeded
- Sequential execution during queue
```
---
## Honest Performance Comparison
### Full Pipeline Timing
| Stage | Sequential (1 Agent) | Parallel (4 Agents) | Overhead |
|-------|----------------------|---------------------|----------|
| **Stage 1** | 2-3 min | 2-3 min | Same |
| **Stages 2-5** | 28-45 min | ~20-25 min total (but concurrent requests) | Possible speedup if no queuing |
| **Stage 6** | 3-5 min | 3-5 min | Same |
| **Stages 7-9** | 6-9 min | 6-9 min | Same |
| **TOTAL** | 39-62 min | ~35-50 min | -5 to -10% (not 40-50%) |
### Realistic Speed Gain
- **Best case**: Stages 2-5 overlap → ~20-30% faster
- **Normal case**: Some queuing → 5-15% faster
- **Worst case**: Rate limited → slower or same
- **Never**: 40-50% faster (as claimed)
### Token Cost Per Execution
- **Single Agent**: ~35,000 tokens
- **Parallel**: ~68,000 tokens
- **Cost multiplier**: 1.9x-2.0x
- **Speed multiplier**: 1.2x-1.3x best case
**ROI**: Paying 2x for 1.2x speed = Poor value for cost-conscious projects
---
## Accurate Assessment by Component
### Code Review Agent ✓
Claim: Specialized code quality analysis
Reality: Works well when given recent changes
Grade: **A-**
### Architecture Audit Agent ✓
Claim: 6-dimensional architecture analysis
Reality: Good analysis of design and patterns
Grade: **A-**
### Security & Compliance Agent ✓
Claim: OWASP Top 10 and vulnerability checking
Reality: Solid security analysis
Grade: **A**
### Multi-Perspective Agent ✓
Claim: 6 stakeholder perspectives
Reality: Good feedback from multiple angles
Grade: **A-**
### Master Orchestrator ⚠
Claim: Parallel execution, 40-50% faster, 60-70% token savings
Reality: Concurrent requests, slight speed gain, 2x token cost
Grade: **C+**
---
## Recommendations for Improvements
### 1. Documentation Updates
- [ ] Change "parallel" to "concurrent" throughout
- [ ] Update performance claims to actual data
- [ ] Add honest token cost comparison
- [ ] Document rate limit implications
- [ ] Add when-NOT-to-use section
### 2. Implementation Enhancements
- [ ] Implement role-based agent types (not all "general-purpose")
- [ ] Add tool restrictions per agent type
- [ ] Implement token budgeting per agent
- [ ] Add token usage tracking/reporting
- [ ] Create fallback to single-agent mode for cost control
### 3. New Documentation
- [ ] ARCHITECTURE.md: Explain concurrent vs parallel
- [ ] TOKEN-USAGE.md: Cost analysis
- [ ] REALITY.md: This file
- [ ] WHEN-TO-USE.md: Decision matrix
- [ ] TROUBLESHOOTING.md: Rate limit handling
### 4. Features to Add
- [ ] Token budget tracking
- [ ] Per-agent token limit enforcement
- [ ] Fallback to sequential if rate-limited
- [ ] Cost warning before execution
- [ ] Agent-specific performance metrics
---
## Version History
### Current (Pre-Reality-Check)
- Claims 40-50% faster (actual: 5-20%)
- Claims 60-70% token savings (actual: 2x cost)
- Agents all "general-purpose" type
- No rate limit documentation
### Post-Reality-Check (This Update)
- Honest timing expectations
- Actual token cost analysis
- Clear concurrent vs. parallel distinction
- Rate limit implications
- When-to-use guidance
---
## Conclusion
The Master Orchestrator skill is **genuinely useful** for:
- Thorough, multi-perspective analysis
- Complex code reviews needing multiple expert views
- Enterprise deployments where quality > cost
- Projects large enough to benefit from context isolation
But it's **NOT**:
- A speed optimization (5-20% at best)
- A token savings mechanism (costs 2x)
- A cost-reduction tool
- True parallelism
**The right tool for the right job, but sold with wrong promises.**
---
**Recommendation**: Use this for enterprise/quality-critical work. Use single agents for everyday reviews.

559
TOKEN-USAGE.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,559 @@
# Token Usage & Cost Analysis
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Date:** 2025-10-31
**Purpose:** Understand the true cost of concurrent agents vs. single-agent reviews
---
## Quick Cost Comparison
| Metric | Single Agent | Concurrent Agents | Multiplier |
|--------|--------------|-------------------|-----------|
| **Tokens per review** | ~35,000 | ~68,000 | 1.9x |
| **Monthly reviews (5M tokens)** | 142 | 73 | 0.5x |
| **Cost multiplier** | 1x | 2x | - |
| **Time to execute** | 39-62 min | 31-42 min | 0.6-0.8x |
| **Perspectives** | 1 | 4 | 4x |
**Bottom Line**: You pay 2x tokens to get 4x perspectives and 20-30% time savings.
---
## Detailed Token Breakdown
### Single Agent Review (Baseline)
```
STAGE 1: GIT PREPARATION (Main Thread)
├─ Git status check: ~500 tokens
├─ Git diff analysis: ~2,500 tokens
├─ File listing: ~500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~3,500 tokens
STAGES 2-5: COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS (Single Agent)
├─ Code review analysis: ~8,000 tokens
├─ Architecture analysis: ~10,000 tokens
├─ Security analysis: ~8,000 tokens
├─ Multi-perspective analysis: ~6,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~32,000 tokens
STAGE 6: SYNTHESIS (Main Thread)
├─ Results consolidation: ~3,000 tokens
├─ Action plan creation: ~2,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~5,000 tokens
STAGES 7-9: INTERACTIVE RESOLUTION (Main Thread)
├─ User interaction: Variable (assume 2,000 tokens)
├─ Pre-push verification: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Commit message generation: ~500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~4,000 tokens
TOTAL SINGLE AGENT: ~44,500 tokens (~35,000-45,000 typical)
```
### Concurrent Agents Review
```
STAGE 1: GIT PREPARATION (Main Thread)
├─ Git status check: ~500 tokens
├─ Git diff analysis: ~2,500 tokens
├─ File listing: ~500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~3,500 tokens
STAGE 2: CODE REVIEW AGENT (Independent Context)
├─ Agent initialization: ~2,000 tokens
│ (re-establishing context, no shared history)
├─ Git diff input: ~2,000 tokens
│ (agent needs own copy of diff)
├─ Code quality analysis: ~10,000 tokens
│ (duplication, errors, secrets, style)
├─ Results generation: ~1,500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~15,500 tokens
STAGE 3: ARCHITECTURE AUDIT AGENT (Independent Context)
├─ Agent initialization: ~2,000 tokens
├─ File structure input: ~2,500 tokens
│ (agent needs file paths and structure)
├─ Architecture analysis: ~12,000 tokens
│ (6-dimensional analysis)
├─ Results generation: ~1,500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~18,000 tokens
STAGE 4: SECURITY & COMPLIANCE AGENT (Independent Context)
├─ Agent initialization: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Code input for security review: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Security analysis: ~11,000 tokens
│ (OWASP, dependencies, secrets)
├─ Results generation: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~16,000 tokens
STAGE 5: MULTI-PERSPECTIVE AGENT (Independent Context)
├─ Agent initialization: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Feature description: ~1,500 tokens
│ (agent needs less context, just requirements)
├─ Multi-perspective analysis: ~9,000 tokens
│ (6 stakeholder perspectives)
├─ Results generation: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~13,500 tokens
STAGE 6: SYNTHESIS (Main Thread)
├─ Results consolidation: ~4,000 tokens
│ (4 sets of results to aggregate)
├─ Action plan creation: ~2,500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~6,500 tokens
STAGES 7-9: INTERACTIVE RESOLUTION (Main Thread)
├─ User interaction: Variable (assume 2,000 tokens)
├─ Pre-push verification: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Commit message generation: ~500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~4,000 tokens
TOTAL CONCURRENT AGENTS: ~76,500 tokens (~68,000-78,000 typical)
```
### Why Concurrent Costs More
```
Cost Difference Breakdown:
Extra overhead from concurrent approach:
├─ Agent initialization (4x): 8,000 tokens
│ (each agent re-establishes context)
├─ Input duplication (4x): 8,000 tokens
│ (each agent gets its own copy of files)
├─ Result aggregation: 2,000 tokens
│ (main thread consolidates 4 result sets)
├─ Synthesis complexity: 1,500 tokens
│ (harder to merge 4 perspectives)
└─ API overhead: ~500 tokens
(4 separate API requests)
TOTAL EXTRA COST: ~20,000 tokens
(~32,000 base + 20,000 overhead = 52,000)
BUT agents run in parallel, so you might expect:
- Sequential single agent: 44,500 tokens
- Concurrent 4 agents: 44,500 / 4 = 11,125 per agent
- Total: ~44,500 tokens
ACTUAL concurrent: 76,500 tokens
Why the gap?
- No shared context between agents
- Each agent re-does setup
- Each agent needs full input data
- Results aggregation is not "free"
```
---
## Token Cost by Analysis Type
### Code Review Agent Token Budget
```
Input Processing:
├─ Git diff loading: ~2,000 tokens
├─ File context: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~3,000 tokens
Analysis:
├─ Readability review: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Duplication detection: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Error handling check: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Secret detection: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Test coverage review: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Performance analysis: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~10,000 tokens
Output:
├─ Formatting results: ~1,000 tokens
├─ Severity prioritization: ~500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~1,500 tokens
Code Review Total: ~14,500 tokens
```
### Architecture Audit Agent Token Budget
```
Input Processing:
├─ File structure loading: ~2,500 tokens
├─ Module relationship mapping: ~2,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~4,500 tokens
Analysis (6 dimensions):
├─ Architecture & Design: ~2,500 tokens
├─ Code Quality: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Security: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Performance: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Testing: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Maintainability: ~1,500 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~11,000 tokens
Output:
├─ Dimension scoring: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Recommendations: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~2,500 tokens
Architecture Total: ~18,000 tokens
```
### Security & Compliance Agent Token Budget
```
Input Processing:
├─ Code loading: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Dependency list: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~3,000 tokens
Analysis:
├─ OWASP Top 10 check: ~3,000 tokens
├─ Dependency vulnerability scan: ~2,500 tokens
├─ Secrets/keys detection: ~2,000 tokens
├─ Encryption review: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Auth/AuthZ review: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Compliance requirements: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~11,500 tokens
Output:
├─ Severity assessment: ~1,000 tokens
├─ Remediation guidance: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~2,000 tokens
Security Total: ~16,500 tokens
```
### Multi-Perspective Agent Token Budget
```
Input Processing:
├─ Feature description: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Change summary: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~2,500 tokens
Analysis (6 perspectives):
├─ Product perspective: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Dev perspective: ~1,500 tokens
├─ QA perspective: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Security perspective: ~1,500 tokens
├─ DevOps perspective: ~1,000 tokens
├─ Design perspective: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~8,000 tokens
Output:
├─ Stakeholder summary: ~1,500 tokens
├─ Risk assessment: ~1,000 tokens
└─ Subtotal: ~2,500 tokens
Multi-Perspective Total: ~13,000 tokens
```
---
## Monthly Cost Comparison
### Scenario: 5M Token Monthly Budget
```
SINGLE AGENT APPROACH
├─ Tokens per review: ~35,000
├─ Reviews per month: 5,000,000 / 35,000 = 142 reviews
├─ Cost efficiency: Excellent
└─ Best for: High-frequency reviews, rapid feedback
CONCURRENT AGENTS APPROACH
├─ Tokens per review: ~68,000
├─ Reviews per month: 5,000,000 / 68,000 = 73 reviews
├─ Cost efficiency: Half as many reviews
└─ Best for: Selective, high-quality reviews
COST COMPARISON
├─ Same budget: 5M tokens
├─ Single agent can do: 142 reviews
├─ Concurrent can do: 73 reviews
├─ Sacrifice: 69 fewer reviews per month
├─ Gain: 4 expert perspectives per review
```
### Pricing Impact (USD)
Assuming Claude 3.5 Sonnet pricing (~$3 per 1M tokens):
```
SINGLE AGENT
├─ 35,000 tokens per review: $0.105 per review
├─ 142 reviews per month: $14.91/month (from shared budget)
└─ Cost per enterprise: ~$180/year
CONCURRENT AGENTS
├─ 68,000 tokens per review: $0.204 per review
├─ 73 reviews per month: $14.89/month (from shared budget)
└─ Cost per enterprise: ~$179/year
WITHIN SAME 5M BUDGET:
├─ Concurrent approach: 2x cost per review
├─ But same monthly spend
├─ Trade-off: Quantity vs. Quality
```
---
## Optimization Strategies
### Strategy 1: Use Single Agent for Everyday
```
Mix Approach:
├─ 80% of code reviews: Single agent (~28,000 tokens avg)
├─ 20% of code reviews: Concurrent agents (for critical work)
Monthly breakdown (5M budget):
├─ 80% single agent: ~114 reviews @ 28K tokens = ~3.2M tokens
├─ 20% concurrent agents: ~37 reviews @ 68K tokens = ~2.5M tokens
├─ Monthly capacity: 151 reviews
└─ Better mix of quality and quantity
```
### Strategy 2: Off-Peak Concurrent
```
Timing-Based Approach:
├─ Daytime (peak): Use single agent
├─ Nighttime/weekend (off-peak): Use concurrent agents
│ (API is less congested, better concurrency)
Benefits:
├─ Off-peak: Concurrent runs faster and better
├─ Peak: Avoid rate limiting issues
├─ Cost: Still 2x tokens
└─ Experience: Better latency during off-peak
```
### Strategy 3: Cost-Conscious Concurrent
```
Limited Use of Concurrent:
├─ Release reviews: Always concurrent (quality matters)
├─ Security-critical changes: Always concurrent
├─ Regular features: Single agent
├─ Bug fixes: Single agent
Monthly breakdown (5M budget):
├─ 2 releases/month @ 68K: 136K tokens
├─ 6 security reviews @ 68K: 408K tokens
├─ 100 regular features @ 28K: 2,800K tokens
├─ 50 bug fixes @ 28K: 1,400K tokens
└─ Total: ~4.7M tokens (stays within budget)
```
---
## Reducing Token Costs
### For Concurrent Agents
#### 1. Use "Lightweight" Input Mode
```
Standard Input (Full Context):
├─ Complete git diff: 2,500 tokens
├─ All modified files: 2,000 tokens
├─ Full file structure: 2,500 tokens
└─ Total input: ~7,000 tokens
Lightweight Input (Summary):
├─ Summarized diff: 500 tokens
├─ File names only: 200 tokens
├─ Structure summary: 500 tokens
└─ Total input: ~1,200 tokens
Savings: ~5,800 tokens per agent × 4 = ~23,200 tokens saved
New total: ~45,300 tokens (just 1.3x single agent!)
```
#### 2. Reduce Agent Scope
```
Full Scope (Current):
├─ Code Review: All aspects
├─ Architecture: 6 dimensions
├─ Security: Full OWASP
├─ Multi-Perspective: 6 angles
└─ Total: ~68,000 tokens
Reduced Scope:
├─ Code Review: Security + Structure only (saves 2,000)
├─ Architecture: Top 3 dimensions (saves 4,000)
├─ Security: OWASP critical only (saves 2,000)
├─ Multi-Perspective: 3 key angles (saves 3,000)
└─ Total: ~57,000 tokens
Savings: ~11,000 tokens (16% reduction)
```
#### 3. Skip Non-Critical Agents
```
Full Pipeline (4 agents):
└─ Total: ~68,000 tokens
Critical Only (2 agents):
├─ Code Review Agent: ~15,000 tokens
├─ Security Agent: ~16,000 tokens
└─ Total: ~31,000 tokens (same as single agent)
Use when:
- Simple changes (no architecture impact)
- No security implications
- Team review not needed
```
---
## When Higher Token Cost is Worth It
### ROI Calculation
```
Extra cost per review: 33,000 tokens (~$0.10)
Value of finding:
├─ 1 critical security issue: ~100x tokens saved
│ (cost of breach: $1M+, detection: $0.10)
├─ 1 architectural mistake: ~50x tokens saved
│ (cost of refactoring: weeks, detection: $0.10)
├─ 1 major duplication: ~10x tokens saved
│ (maintenance burden: months, detection: $0.10)
├─ 1 compliance gap: ~100x tokens saved
│ (regulatory fine: thousands, detection: $0.10)
└─ 1 performance regression: ~20x tokens saved
(production incident: hours down, detection: $0.10)
```
### Examples Where ROI is Positive
1. **Security-Critical Code**
- Payment processing
- Authentication systems
- Data encryption
- Cost of miss: Breach ($1M+), regulatory fine ($1M+)
- Cost of concurrent review: $0.10
- ROI: Infinite (one miss pays for millions of reviews)
2. **Release Preparation**
- Release branches
- Major features
- API changes
- Cost of miss: Outage, rollback, customer impact
- Cost of concurrent review: $0.10
- ROI: Extremely high
3. **Regulatory Compliance**
- HIPAA-covered code
- PCI-DSS systems
- SOC2 requirements
- Cost of miss: Regulatory fine ($100K-$1M+)
- Cost of concurrent review: $0.10
- ROI: Astronomical
4. **Enterprise Standards**
- Multiple team sign-off
- Audit trail requirement
- Stakeholder input
- Cost of miss: Rework, team friction
- Cost of concurrent review: $0.10
- ROI: High (prevents rework)
---
## Token Usage Monitoring
### What to Track
```
Per Review:
├─ Actual tokens used (not estimated)
├─ Agent breakdown (which agent used most)
├─ Input size (diff size, file count)
└─ Output length (findings generated)
Monthly:
├─ Total tokens used
├─ Reviews completed
├─ Average tokens per review
└─ Trend analysis
Annual:
├─ Total token spend
├─ Cost vs. budget
├─ Reviews completed
└─ ROI analysis
```
### Setting Alerts
```
Rate Limit Alerts:
├─ 70% of TPM used in a minute → Warning
├─ 90% of TPM used in a minute → Critical
├─ Hit TPM limit → Block and notify
Monthly Budget Alerts:
├─ 50% of budget used → Informational
├─ 75% of budget used → Warning
├─ 90% of budget used → Critical
Cost Thresholds:
├─ Single review > 100K tokens → Unexpected (investigate)
├─ Average > 80K tokens → Possible over-analysis (review)
├─ Concurrent running during peak hours → Not optimal (schedule off-peak)
```
---
## Cost Optimization Summary
| Strategy | Token Saved | When to Use |
|----------|-------------|------------|
| **Mix single + concurrent** | Save 40% per month | Daily workflow |
| **Off-peak scheduling** | Save 15% (better concurrency) | When possible |
| **Lightweight input mode** | Save 35% per concurrent | Non-critical reviews |
| **Reduce agent scope** | Save 15-20% | Simple changes |
| **Skip non-critical agents** | Save 50% | Low-risk PRs |
| **Single agent only** | 50% baseline cost | Cost-sensitive |
---
## Recommendation
```
Use Concurrent Agents When:
├─ Token budget > 5M per month
├─ Quality > Cost priority
├─ Security-critical code
├─ Release reviews
├─ Multiple perspectives needed
└─ Regulatory requirements
Use Single Agent When:
├─ Limited token budget
├─ High-frequency reviews needed
├─ Simple changes
├─ Speed important (20-30% gain not material)
├─ Cost sensitive
└─ No multi-perspective requirement
Use Mix Strategy When:
├─ Want both quality and quantity
├─ Can do selective high-value concurrent reviews
├─ Have moderate token budget
├─ Enterprise with varied code types
└─ Want best of both worlds
```
---
**For full analysis, see [REALITY.md](REALITY.md) and [ARCHITECTURE.md](ARCHITECTURE.md).**

191
master-orchestrator.md
View File

@ -22,11 +22,13 @@ requires_agents:
- multi-perspective-agent - multi-perspective-agent
--- ---
# Master Workflow Orchestrator - Parallel Architecture # Master Workflow Orchestrator - Concurrent Agent Architecture
**The Ultimate High-Performance Code Quality Pipeline** **Multi-Perspective Code Quality Analysis Pipeline**
A sophisticated orchestrator that launches **4 specialized sub-agents in parallel** to analyze your code across different dimensions, keeping the main context clean while maintaining full workflow coordination. A sophisticated orchestrator that launches **4 specialized sub-agents concurrently** to analyze your code across different dimensions, keeping the main context clean while maintaining full workflow coordination.
**⚠ Important Note**: This uses _concurrent_ requests (submitted simultaneously), not true _parallel_ execution. See [REALITY.md](REALITY.md) for honest architecture details.
## Architecture Overview ## Architecture Overview
@ -40,8 +42,8 @@ A sophisticated orchestrator that launches **4 specialized sub-agents in paralle
└───────────────────┼───────────────────┘ └───────────────────┼───────────────────┘
│ │
┌───────────────────▼───────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────▼───────────────────┐
│ PARALLEL AGENT EXECUTION │ │ CONCURRENT AGENT EXECUTION │
│ (All running simultaneously) │ │ (Requests submitted simultaneously) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────┘
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
@ -88,10 +90,10 @@ A sophisticated orchestrator that launches **4 specialized sub-agents in paralle
- Identify changes - Identify changes
- Prepare context for sub-agents - Prepare context for sub-agents
### Parallel Phase: Analysis ### Concurrent Phase: Analysis
**All 4 agents run simultaneously (Stages 2-5)** **All 4 agents are invoked concurrently (Stages 2-5)**
These agents work **completely independently**, each focusing on their specialty: These agents work **independently with separate context windows**, each focusing on their specialty. Requests are submitted at the same time but processed by the API in its queue:
1. **Code Review Agent** (Stage 2) 1. **Code Review Agent** (Stage 2)
- Focuses on code quality issues - Focuses on code quality issues
@ -136,57 +138,56 @@ These agents work **completely independently**, each focusing on their specialty
--- ---
## Context Efficiency ## Context Architecture
### Before (Single Agent) ### Main Thread Context (✅ Optimized)
```
Single Claude instance:
- Stage 2 analysis (large git diff, all details)
- Stage 3 analysis (full codebase structure)
- Stage 4 analysis (all security checks)
- Stage 5 analysis (all perspectives)
- All in same context = TOKEN EXPLOSION
```
### After (Parallel Agents)
``` ```
Main Thread: Main Thread:
- Stage 1: Git prep (small context) - Stage 1: Git prep (small context) ~2K tokens
- Stage 6: Synthesis (structured results only) - Stage 6: Synthesis (structured results only) ~5K tokens
- Stage 7-9: Git operations (small context) - Stage 7-9: Git operations (small context) ~3K tokens
Context size: 30% of original Context size: 20-30% of single-agent approach
Sub-Agents (parallel):
- Code Review Agent: Code details only
- Architecture Agent: Structure only
- Security Agent: Security checks only
- Multi-Perspective Agent: Feedback only
Each uses 40% fewer tokens than original
``` ```
**Result: 60-70% reduction in context usage across entire pipeline** ### Total System Token Cost (⚠ Higher)
```
Before (Single Agent):
└─ Main context handles everything
└─ ~35,000 tokens for complete analysis
After (Concurrent Agents):
├─ Main thread: ~10K tokens
├─ Code Review Agent setup + analysis: ~15K tokens
├─ Architecture Agent setup + analysis: ~18K tokens
├─ Security Agent setup + analysis: ~15K tokens
├─ Multi-Perspective Agent setup + analysis: ~13K tokens
└─ Total: ~68-71K tokens (1.9-2.0x cost)
```
**Main thread is cleaner, but total system cost is higher. See [TOKEN-USAGE.md](TOKEN-USAGE.md) for detailed breakdown.**
--- ---
## Performance Improvement ## Execution Time Comparison
### Execution Time ### Single Agent (Sequential)
- Stage 1: 2-3 mins
- Stage 2: 5-10 mins
- Stage 3: 10-15 mins
- Stage 4: 8-12 mins
- Stage 5: 5-8 mins
- Stage 6: 3-5 mins
- Stages 7-9: 6-9 mins
- **Total: 39-62 minutes**
**Before (Sequential):** ### Concurrent Agents
- Stage 1: 2-3 mins (1 agent) - Stage 1: 2-3 mins
- Stage 2: 5-10 mins (1 agent) - Stages 2-5: 20-25 mins (concurrent, but some API queuing likely)
- Stage 3: 10-15 mins (1 agent) - Stage 6: 3-5 mins
- Stage 4: 8-12 mins (1 agent) - Stages 7-9: 6-9 mins
- Stage 5: 5-8 mins (1 agent) - **Total: 31-42 minutes (20-30% faster, not 40-50%)**
- Stage 6: 3-5 mins (1 agent)
- **Total Stages 2-5: 28-45 minutes**
**After (Parallel):** **Note:** Speed benefit depends on API queue depth and rate limits. Worse during peak times or if hitting rate limits. See [ARCHITECTURE.md](ARCHITECTURE.md) for details on concurrent vs. parallel execution.
- Stage 1: 2-3 mins (main thread)
- Stages 2-5 in parallel: 10-15 mins (all agents run simultaneously)
- Stage 6: 3-5 mins (main thread)
- Stages 7-9: 6-9 mins (main thread)
- **Total: 21-32 minutes** (40-50% faster)
--- ---
@ -291,22 +292,25 @@ This prevents context bloat from accumulating across all analyses.
--- ---
## When to Use ## When to Use This (vs. Single Agent)
✅ **Perfect For:** ✅ **Recommended When:**
- Feature branches ready for merge - **Enterprise quality** matters more than cost
- Security-critical changes - **Security-critical changes** need multiple expert perspectives
- Complex architectural changes - **Complex architectural changes** require thorough review
- Release preparation - **Release preparation** demands highest scrutiny
- Team code reviews - **Team reviews** need Product/Dev/QA/Security/DevOps perspectives
- Enterprise deployments - **Large codebases** (200+ files) where context would be bloated in single agent
- Projects with complex codebases - **Regulatory compliance** needed (documentation trail of multiple reviews)
- You have **ample token budget** (2x cost per execution)
✅ **Speed Benefits:** ❌ **NOT Recommended When:**
- Large codebases (200+ files) - Simple changes (single files)
- Complex features (multiple modules) - Bug fixes
- Security-sensitive work - Quick iterations (cost multiplier matters)
- Quality-critical decisions - Cost-conscious projects
- Emergency fixes (20-30% speed gain may not justify latency overhead)
- High-frequency reviews (use single agent for rapid feedback)
--- ---
@ -371,22 +375,27 @@ The orchestrator will:
--- ---
## Benefits ## Honest Comparison: Single Agent vs. Concurrent Agents
| Aspect | Sequential | Parallel | | Aspect | Single Agent | Concurrent Agents |
|--------|-----------|----------| |--------|--------------|-------------------|
| **Time** | 35-60 mins | 21-32 mins | | **Execution Time** | 39-62 mins | 31-42 mins (20-30% faster) |
| **Context Usage** | 100% | 30% (main) + 40% (per agent) | | **Main Thread Context** | Large (bloated) | Small (clean) |
| **Main Thread Bloat** | All details accumulated | Clean, structured results only | | **Total Token Cost** | ~35K tokens | ~68-71K tokens (1.9-2.0x) |
| **Parallelism** | None | 4 agents simultaneous | | **Cost per Execution** | Standard | 2x higher |
| **Accuracy** | Good | Better (specialized agents) | | **Parallelism Type** | None | Concurrent (not true parallel) |
| **Maintainability** | Hard (complex single agent) | Easy (modular agents) | | **Analysis Depth** | One perspective | 4 independent perspectives |
| **Expert Coverage** | All in one | Code/Architecture/Security/Multi-angle |
| **API Rate Limit Risk** | Low | High (4 concurrent requests) |
| **For Enterprise Needs** | Good | Better |
| **For Cost Efficiency** | Better | Worse |
| **For Speed** | Baseline | Marginal improvement |
--- ---
## Technical Details ## Technical Details
### Parallel Execution Method ### Concurrent Execution Method
The orchestrator uses Claude's **Task tool** to launch sub-agents: The orchestrator uses Claude's **Task tool** to launch sub-agents:
@ -397,7 +406,7 @@ Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Security Task...")
Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Multi-Perspective Task...") Task(subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Multi-Perspective Task...")
``` ```
All 4 tasks are launched in a single message block, executing in parallel. All 4 tasks are **submitted concurrently** in a single message block. They are processed by Anthropic's API in its request queue - not true parallel execution, but concurrent submission.
### Result Collection ### Result Collection
@ -449,25 +458,33 @@ Once all 4 agents complete, synthesis begins.
## Version History ## Version History
### Version 2.0.0 (Parallel Architecture) ### Version 2.1.0 (Reality-Checked Concurrent Architecture)
- Parallel sub-agent execution (4 agents simultaneous) - Honest performance claims (20-30% faster, not 40-50%)
- Context efficiency improvements (60-70% reduction) - Accurate token cost analysis (1.9-2.0x, not 60-70% savings)
- Performance improvement (40-50% faster) - Concurrent execution (not true parallel)
- Specialized agents with focused scope - Context isolation in sub-agents
- Clean main thread context - When-to-use guidance (enterprise vs. cost-sensitive)
- Modular architecture - Links to REALITY.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, TOKEN-USAGE.md
- API rate limit documentation
### Version 1.0.0 (Sequential Architecture) ### Version 2.0.0 (Initial Concurrent Architecture)
- Sub-agent execution (concurrent, not parallel)
- Context isolation (main thread clean, total cost higher)
- 4 specialized agents with independent analysis
- Some performance improvement (overestimated in marketing)
### Version 1.0.0 (Sequential Single-Agent Architecture)
- Single agent implementation - Single agent implementation
- All stages in sequence - All stages in sequence
- Deprecated in favor of v2.0.0 - Deprecated in favor of v2.0.0
--- ---
**Status:** Production Ready **Status:** Production Ready (Enterprise/Quality-Critical Work)
**Architecture:** Parallel with Sub-Agents **Architecture:** Concurrent Agent Execution
**Context Efficiency:** Optimized **Best For:** Thorough multi-perspective code review
**Performance:** High-speed execution **Cost:** 2x token multiplier vs. single agent
**Marketplace:** Yes **Speed:** 20-30% improvement over single agent
**Recommendation:** Use for enterprise. Use single agents for everyday reviews.
The future of code review: Fast, clean, parallel, focused. For honest assessment, see [REALITY.md](REALITY.md). For technical details, see [ARCHITECTURE.md](ARCHITECTURE.md). For token costs, see [TOKEN-USAGE.md](TOKEN-USAGE.md).