home / skills / jackspace / claudeskillz / dispatching-parallel-agents_obra

dispatching-parallel-agents_obra skill

/skills/dispatching-parallel-agents_obra

This skill dispatches multiple Claude agents to investigate independent failures in parallel, accelerating debugging without shared state

npx playbooks add skill jackspace/claudeskillz --skill dispatching-parallel-agents_obra

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (3)
SKILL.md
6.0 KB
---
name: dispatching-parallel-agents
description: Use when facing 3+ independent failures that can be investigated without shared state or dependencies - dispatches multiple Claude agents to investigate and fix independent problems concurrently
---

# Dispatching Parallel Agents

## Overview

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

```dot
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

```typescript
// In Claude Code / AI environment
Task("Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures")
Task("Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures")
Task("Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures")
// All three run concurrently
```

### 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?

```markdown
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:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green

**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially

## Key Benefits

1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously
2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track
3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other
4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1

## Verification

After agents return:
1. **Review each summary** - Understand what changed
2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?
3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together
4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors

## Real-World Impact

From debugging session (2025-10-03):
- 6 failures across 3 files
- 3 agents dispatched in parallel
- All investigations completed concurrently
- All fixes integrated successfully
- Zero conflicts between agent changes

Overview

This skill dispatches multiple parallel Claude agents to investigate and fix three or more independent problems concurrently. It speeds up triage by assigning one focused agent per failure domain so investigations proceed in parallel without shared-state interference. Use it when problems are independent and can be addressed with self-contained context.

How this skill works

You group failures into independent domains, craft a focused prompt for each domain, and spawn a separate agent per domain. Each agent receives self-contained context, a clear goal, constraints, and expected output. When agents finish, their summaries and patches are reviewed, merged, and the full test suite is run to verify integration.

When to use it

  • Three or more unrelated test failures across different files or subsystems
  • Multiple independent subsystems are broken with distinct root causes
  • Each investigation needs no shared runtime state or cross-context reasoning
  • You can provide complete, self-contained context for each agent
  • You want faster turnaround by parallelizing investigations

Best practices

  • Define narrow, specific scopes: one test file or subsystem per agent
  • Provide all required context in the prompt (errors, test names, relevant files) so agents are self-contained
  • Set constraints: what agents must not change and expected output format (summary, changed files)
  • Prefer event-based fixes over naive timeout increases when addressing timing/race issues
  • Review each agent summary before merging and run the full test suite to catch integration issues

Example use cases

  • Three failing test files after a refactor: dispatch one agent per file to investigate race conditions, event bugs, and incorrect expectations
  • Independent subsystem outages (e.g., auth, batch processing, monitoring) where fixes won't overlap
  • Parallel debugging of multiple flaky tests that point to separate causes
  • Concurrent code patches where each agent returns a focused PR or patch and a summary of the root cause

FAQ

What if agents edit the same files?

Avoid parallel dispatch when agents must edit the same files or share state. If unavoidable, coordinate by assigning non-overlapping tasks or serializing merge order and resolving conflicts manually.

How do I know problems are independent?

Group failures by symptom and code ownership. If fixing one failure is likely to affect others, treat them as related and investigate sequentially to avoid wasted effort.