CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

march-3/dispatching-parallel-agents

Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies

89

Quality

89%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

SKILL.md

name:
dispatching-parallel-agents
description:
Runs multiple independent tasks concurrently by dispatching one focused agent per problem domain, completing batch workloads faster than sequential processing. Use when facing 2+ parallel tasks such as multiple failing test files, broken subsystems, or independent bugs that can be investigated and fixed simultaneously without shared state or sequential dependencies. Also useful when users ask to "run things in parallel", "work on multiple issues at the same time", handle "batch processing", or "multi-task" across independent problem domains.

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 / When Not to Use

Decision tree:

  • Multiple failures?
    • No → Single agent handles it
    • Yes → Are they independent?
      • No (related) → Single agent investigates all
      • Yes → Can they work in parallel?
        • YesParallel dispatch
        • No (shared state) → Sequential agents

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) — investigate together first
  • Need to understand full system state before acting
  • Exploratory debugging — you don't know what's broken yet
  • Agents would interfere with each other (editing same files, using same resources)

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

// 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?
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

❌ Don't✅ Do
"Fix all the tests" — too broad, agent gets lost"Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts" — focused scope
"Fix the race condition" — no contextPaste the error messages and test names
No constraints — agent might refactor everything"Do NOT change production code" or "Fix tests only"
"Fix it" — vague output"Return summary of root cause and changes"

Real Example

Scenario: 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring (2025-10-03)

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. 3 problems solved concurrently in the time it would have taken to fix 1 sequentially.

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

SKILL.md

tile.json