Source profileQuality 93/100

first-fluke/oh-my-agent/skills/oma-orchestration/SKILL.md

oma-orchestration

Automated multi-agent orchestration that spawns CLI subagents in parallel, coordinates via MCP Memory, and monitors progress. Use for orchestration, parallel execution, and automated multi-agent workflows.

Source repository stars
1,253
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-28
Source checked
2026-08-28

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Automated multi-agent orchestration that spawns CLI subagents in parallel, coordinates via MCP Memory, and monitors progress. Use for orchestration, parallel execution, and automated multi-agent workflows.

Best for

    Not for

    • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
    • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

    Compatibility matrix

    Platform support, with evidence labels

    PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
    CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Open the compatibility checker

    Installation

    Inspect first. Install second.

    The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

    Source-detected install commandSource
    npx skills add https://github.com/first-fluke/oh-my-agent --skill "skills/oma-orchestration"
    Safe inspection promptEditorial

    Inspect the Agent Skill "oma-orchestration" from https://github.com/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/blob/ca736256275e4dc8c15a1fe967eb8c8d1df5fddc/skills/oma-orchestration/SKILL.md at commit ca736256275e4dc8c15a1fe967eb8c8d1df5fddc. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

    Workflow

    What the source asks the agent to do

    1. 01

      Workflow Phases

      PHASE 1 - Plan: Analyze request - decompose tasks - generate session ID PHASE 1.5 - Domain gate: For each task, intersect Intent signature matches across installed skills to derive exposedskillset. Record exposurefallback: true when the intersection is too small to be useful and…

      PHASE 1 - Plan: Analyze request - decompose tasks - generate session ID PHASE 1.5 - Domain gate: For each task, intersect Intent signature matches across installed skills to derive exposedskillset. Record exposurefallba…See resources/subagent-prompt-template.md for prompt construction. See resources/memory-schema.md for memory file formats.
    2. 02

      Agent-to-Agent Review Loop (PHASE 4.5)

      After each agent completes, enter an iterative review loop, not a single-pass verification.

      After each agent completes, enter an iterative review loop, not a single-pass verification.
    3. 03

      Step Details

      [1] Mechanical Self-Check (formerly "Self-Review"): Before requesting external review, the implementation agent must: - Run lint, type-check, and tests in the workspace - Verify only planned files were modified (diff scope check) - Fix any mechanical failures (compile errors, te…

      Run lint, type-check, and tests in the workspaceVerify only planned files were modified (diff scope check)Fix any mechanical failures (compile errors, test failures)
    4. 04

      Review Feedback Format

      When feeding review results back to the implementation agent:

      When feeding review results back to the implementation agent:
    5. 05

      Review Feedback (iteration {n}/{max})

      Reviewer: {self / verify / qa-agent} Verdict: FAIL Issues: 1. {specific issue with file and line reference} 2. {specific issue} Fix instruction: {what to change}

      {specific issue with file and line reference}{specific issue}Include CD summary in final report

    Permission review

    Static risk signals and limitations

    No configured static risk pattern was detected

    This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

    Evidence record

    Why each signal appears

    EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
    SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
    Quality score93/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
    Repository stars1,253SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
    Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
    Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

    Pinned source

    Provenance and original SKILL.md

    Repository
    first-fluke/oh-my-agent
    Skill path
    skills/oma-orchestration/SKILL.md
    Commit
    ca736256275e4dc8c15a1fe967eb8c8d1df5fddc
    License
    MIT
    Collected
    2026-08-28
    Default branch
    main
    View the original SKILL.md

    Orchestration - Automated Multi-Agent Coordination

    Scheduling

    Goal

    Automatically orchestrate multi-agent execution with task decomposition, native/fallback dispatch, memory coordination, progress monitoring, verification, QA cross-review, retry, and result collection.

    Intent signature

    • User asks to orchestrate, run in parallel, automate multi-agent execution, or coordinate full-stack work end to end.
    • Task requires multiple specialist agents and a persistent review/remediation loop.

    When to use

    • Complex feature requires multiple specialized agents working in parallel
    • User wants automated execution without manually spawning agents
    • Full-stack implementation spanning backend, frontend, mobile, and QA
    • User says "run it automatically", "run in parallel", or similar automation requests

    When NOT to use

    • Simple single-domain task -> use the specific agent directly
    • User wants step-by-step manual control -> use oma-coordination
    • Quick bug fixes or minor changes

    Expected inputs

    • Complex feature or workflow request
    • Project config, model/vendor routing, agent types, task constraints, and workspace/session needs
    • Acceptance criteria and verification expectations

    Expected outputs

    • Orchestrator session state, task board, progress files, result files, and final summary
    • Specialist agent outputs after mechanical checks, automated verify, and QA cross-review
    • Review history and retry/remediation status when loops fail

    Dependencies

    • .agents/oma-config.yaml, .codex/agents/*.toml, .gemini/agents/*.md, or fallback oma agent:spawn
    • Memory provider config, subagent prompt template, scripts, task templates, verify script, and session metrics

    Control-flow features

    • Branches by vendor/native dispatch availability, priority tiers, agent completion/failure, verification status, QA verdict, retry limits, and clarification debt
    • Spawns processes/agents and reads/writes memory/result files
    • Blocks termination until persistent workflows complete

    Structural Flow

    Entry

    1. Resolve agent vendor routing and runtime dispatch path.
    2. Decompose request into priority-tiered tasks.
    3. For each task, classify into one or more domain_tags by matching against the Intent signature block of each installed .agents/skills/oma-*/SKILL.md. Tasks that match no domain confidently inherit the union of their parent feature's tags.
    4. Build a per-task exposed_skill_set = skills whose name is in domain_tags. If |exposed_skill_set| < 2 after classification, fall back to the full installed set (flat exposure) and record exposure_fallback: true in the task board.
    5. Create session memory and task board with exposed_skill_set and exposure_fallback per task.

    Scenes

    1. PREPARE: Plan, setup session ID, and initialize memory files.
    2. ACT: Spawn agents by priority tier within parallelism limits.
    3. VERIFY: Run self-check, oma verify, and QA cross-review loop.
    4. RECOVER: Retry failed agents with review history when limits allow.
    5. FINALIZE: Collect result files, compile summary, and clean progress files.

    Transitions

    • If native dispatch is available for current runtime/vendor, use it.
    • If vendors differ or native path is unavailable, use fallback spawn.
    • If verify or QA fails, feed feedback back to the implementation agent.
    • If review loop limits are exceeded, report review history and quality warning.
    • If a task's exposed_skill_set excludes a skill that a recovered failure indicates was needed, re-classify the task and re-dispatch with the expanded set rather than retrying against the original narrow set.

    Failure and recovery

    • Retry failed agents up to configured limits.
    • Re-spawn with review history when review loop is exhausted.
    • Pause or request re-specification when clarification debt thresholds are exceeded.

    Exit

    • Success: all tasks complete, verify/review pass, and results are summarized.
    • Partial success: failed agents, exhausted review loops, or clarification debt are explicit.

    Logical Operations

    Actions

    ActionSSL primitiveEvidence
    Read config and task contextREADoma config, routing, request
    Classify task into domain tagsINFERtask text vs each skill's Intent signature
    Compute exposed skill setSELECTintersection of domain tags and installed skills
    Select dispatch pathSELECTNative vs fallback
    Write session stateWRITEtask board and memory files
    Spawn agentsCALL_TOOLnative CLI or oma agent:spawn
    Poll progressREADprogress/result files
    Run verificationCALL_TOOLoma verify, tests, QA
    Update retry stateUPDATE_STATEloop counters and CD metrics
    Report final resultNOTIFYcompiled summary

    Tools and instruments

    • Native CLI subagent dispatch, fallback spawn scripts, memory tools, verify script, QA agent
    • Session metrics, prompt templates, task templates

    Canonical command path

    oma agent:spawn <agent-type> "<task>" <session-id> -w <workspace>
    oma verify <agent-type> --workspace <workspace> --json
    

    When native runtime dispatch is available, prefer the runtime-specific native path listed in this skill before falling back to oma agent:spawn.

    Resource scope

    ScopeResource target
    LOCAL_FSSession, task-board, progress, result, config files
    PROCESSAgent CLI processes and verify scripts
    MEMORYSession state and clarification debt
    CODEBASEWorkspaces owned by spawned agents

    Preconditions

    • Task is decomposable into specialist agent work.
    • Runtime/vendor dispatch path or fallback exists.

    Effects and side effects

    • Spawns agents and writes session/progress/result artifacts.
    • May cause code changes through specialist agents.
    • May trigger iterative review and retries.

    Guardrails

    1. Orchestrate per-agent dispatch from the project configuration before spawning any agent.
    2. If target_vendor === current_runtime_vendor and the runtime has a verified native path, use native dispatch.
    3. Otherwise fall back to oma agent:spawn.
    4. Never exceed the configured parallelism or retry limits.
    5. Keep session state, task-board state, progress files, and result files aligned throughout the run.
    6. Domain gating must be soft: prefer a narrower exposed_skill_set, but fall back to flat exposure when classification confidence is low rather than starving a task of a required specialist.

    Current native executor paths:

    • Claude Code: Agent tool with .claude/agents/{agent}.md definitions (multiple Agent tool calls in one message run in parallel; results return synchronously — no polling)
    • OpenCode: native task tool with subagent_type: {agent-id}; do not use oma agent:spawn for same-session OpenCode work because it will not appear as a native child task
    • Codex CLI: codex exec "@agent ..." using .codex/agents/*.toml
    • Gemini CLI: gemini -p "@agent ..." using .gemini/agents/*.md

    Vendor-specific execution protocols are injected automatically for fallback CLI runs.

    Configuration

    SettingDefaultDescription
    MAX_PARALLEL3Max concurrent subagents
    MAX_RETRIES2Retry attempts per failed task
    POLL_INTERVAL30sStatus check interval
    MAX_TURNS (impl)20Turn limit for backend/frontend/mobile
    MAX_TURNS (review)15Turn limit for qa/debug
    MAX_TURNS (plan)10Turn limit for pm

    These are skill-level defaults applied by the orchestrating agent; they are not read from config/cli-config.yaml (which carries only vendor CLI and execution settings such as results_dir and timeout).

    Memory Configuration

    Memory provider and tool names are configurable via .agents/mcp.json (not the repo-root .mcp.json, which is the Claude Code MCP server config):

    {
      "memoryConfig": {
        "provider": "file",
        "basePath": ".agents/state/memories",
        "tools": {
          "read": "Read",
          "write": "Write",
          "edit": "Edit"
        }
      }
    }
    

    Workflow Phases

    PHASE 1 - Plan: Analyze request -> decompose tasks -> generate session ID PHASE 1.5 - Domain gate: For each task, intersect Intent signature matches across installed skills to derive exposed_skill_set. Record exposure_fallback: true when the intersection is too small to be useful and the flat library is used instead. PHASE 2 - Setup: Use memory write tool to create orchestrator-session.md + task-board.md (include exposed_skill_set per task) PHASE 3 - Execute: Spawn agents by priority tier (never exceed MAX_PARALLEL); inject only exposed_skill_set into each subagent's available specialist list PHASE 4 - Monitor: Poll every POLL_INTERVAL; handle completed/failed/crashed agents PHASE 4.5 - Verify: Run mechanical checks for every completed agent; run oma verify {agent-type} only for backend, frontend, mobile, qa, debug, and pm; then run QA cross-review for every completed implementation PHASE 5 - Collect: Read all result-{agent}-{sessionId}.md, compile summary, cleanup progress files

    See resources/subagent-prompt-template.md for prompt construction. See resources/memory-schema.md for memory file formats.

    Memory File Ownership

    FileOwnerOthers
    orchestrator-session.mdorchestratorread-only
    task-board.mdorchestratorread-only
    progress-{agent}[-{sessionId}].mdthat agentorchestrator reads
    result-{agent}[-{sessionId}].mdthat agentorchestrator reads

    Agent-to-Agent Review Loop (PHASE 4.5)

    After each agent completes, enter an iterative review loop, not a single-pass verification.

    Loop Flow

    Agent completes work
        ↓
    [1] Mechanical Self-Check: lint, type-check, tests, diff scope
        ↓
    [2] Verify: For supported types, run `oma verify {agent-type} --workspace {workspace}`
        Unsupported (`db`, `refactor`, `architecture`, `tf-infra`, `docs`) → record SKIP and continue
        ↓ FAIL → Agent receives feedback, fixes, back to [1]
        ↓ PASS
    [3] Cross-Review: QA agent reviews the changes
        ↓ FAIL → Agent receives review feedback, fixes, back to [1]
        ↓ PASS
    Accept result
    

    Step Details

    [1] Mechanical Self-Check (formerly "Self-Review"): Before requesting external review, the implementation agent must:

    • Run lint, type-check, and tests in the workspace
    • Verify only planned files were modified (diff scope check)
    • Fix any mechanical failures (compile errors, test failures)

    Quality judgment is NOT performed in this step. Design quality, architecture alignment, and acceptance criteria satisfaction are evaluated exclusively in [3] Cross-Review by the QA agent. Reason: Self-evaluation bias causes agents to consistently overrate their own output (ref: Anthropic harness design research).

    [2] Automated Verify:

    oma verify {agent-type} --workspace {workspace} --json
    
    • Run only for backend, frontend, mobile, qa, debug, and pm.
    • For db, refactor, architecture, tf-infra, and docs, record that automated verify is unsupported and continue to QA cross-review after the mechanical checks.
    • PASS (exit 0): Proceed to cross-review
    • FAIL (exit 1): Feed verify output back to the agent as correction context

    [3] Cross-Review: Spawn QA agent to review the changes:

    • QA agent reads the diff, runs checks, evaluates against acceptance criteria
    • If docs/CODE-REVIEW.md exists, QA agent uses it as the review checklist
    • QA agent outputs: PASS (with optional nits) or FAIL (with specific issues)
    • On FAIL: issues are fed back to the implementation agent for fixing

    Loop Limits

    CounterMaxOn Exceeded
    Self-check + fix cycles3Escalate to cross-review regardless
    Cross-review rejections2Report to user with review history
    Total loop iterations5Force-complete with quality warning

    Review Feedback Format

    When feeding review results back to the implementation agent:

    ## Review Feedback (iteration {n}/{max})
    **Reviewer**: {self / verify / qa-agent}
    **Verdict**: FAIL
    **Issues**:
    1. {specific issue with file and line reference}
    2. {specific issue}
    **Fix instruction**: {what to change}
    

    This replaces single-pass verification. Most "nitpicking" should happen agent-to-agent. Human review is reserved for final approval, not catching lint errors.

    Retry Logic (after review loop exhaustion)

    Before starting any retry, check the termination conditions (OR, whichever fires first wins):

    1. Retry cap: retry count for this agent has reached MAX_RETRIES — do not start another cycle.
    2. Session cost cap: if a quota cap is configured (loadQuotaCap() from cli/io/session-cost.ts; no cap → skip), call checkCap(sessionId, cap). On exceeded === true, save the agent's partial results, report early termination due to quota, and do not spawn the next retry or any remaining agents in the tier.

    If neither condition fires:

    • 1st retry: Re-spawn agent with full review history as context
    • 2nd retry: Re-spawn with "Try a different approach" + review history
    • After MAX_RETRIES exhausted (cost cap not exceeded): activate the Exploration Loop (see orchestrate.md Step 5): generate 2-3 alternative hypotheses, spawn the same agent type with different hypothesis prompts in parallel separate workspaces, score with Quality Score when available, keep the highest-scoring approach, and record all experiments in the Experiment Ledger.
    • Final failure: Report to user with complete review trail, ask whether to continue or abort

    Clarification Debt (CD) Monitoring

    Track user corrections during session execution. See ../_shared/core/session-metrics.md for full protocol.

    Event Classification

    When user sends feedback during session:

    • clarify (+10): User answering agent's question
    • correct (+25): User correcting agent's misunderstanding
    • redo (+40): User rejecting work, requesting restart

    Threshold Actions

    CD ScoreAction
    CD >= 50RCA Required: QA agent must add entry to lessons-learned.md
    CD >= 80Session Pause: Request user to re-specify requirements
    redo >= 2Scope Lock: Request explicit allowlist confirmation before continuing

    Recording

    After each user correction event:

    [EDIT]("session-metrics.md", append event to Events table)
    

    At session end, if CD >= 50:

    1. Include CD summary in final report
    2. Trigger QA agent RCA generation
    3. Update lessons-learned.md with prevention measures

    References

    • Prompt template: resources/subagent-prompt-template.md
    • Memory schema: resources/memory-schema.md
    • Config: config/cli-config.yaml
    • Scripts: scripts/spawn-agent.sh, scripts/parallel-run.sh, scripts/verify.sh
    • Task templates: templates/
    • Skill-to-agent mapping: ../_shared/core/skill-routing.md
    • Verification: scripts/verify.sh <agent-type>
    • Session metrics: ../_shared/core/session-metrics.md
    • API contract template (SSOT): ../_shared/core/api-contracts/template.md; read generated contracts from .agents/results/api-contracts/ (run artifact) or docs/plans/contracts/ (durable spec)
    • Context loading: ../_shared/core/context-loading.md
    • Difficulty guide: ../_shared/core/difficulty-guide.md
    • Clarification protocol: ../_shared/core/clarification-protocol.md
    • Context budget: ../_shared/core/context-budget.md
    • Lessons learned: ../_shared/core/lessons-learned.md

    Frequently asked questions

    What to verify before installation and use

    What does the oma-orchestration source document cover?

    Automated multi-agent orchestration that spawns CLI subagents in parallel, coordinates via MCP Memory, and monitors progress. Use for orchestration, parallel execution, and automated multi-agent workflows.

    How do I install oma-orchestration?

    The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/first-fluke/oh-my-agent --skill "skills/oma-orchestration". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

    Alternatives

    Compare before choosing

    Computed 10029,236

    garrytan/gbrain

    bulk-ingestion

    End-to-end discipline for turning any large data source (audio libraries, email takeouts, document corpora, chat exports, API dumps) into brain pages at scale. The lifecycle spine: SCHEMA → ACCESS → TRIAL → EVALUATE → IMPROVE → CODIFY → TEST → SKILLIFY → BULK → MONITOR. State is tracked in a durable JSON manifest (see MANIFEST-PATTERN.md) so any crash, session boundary, or subagent fan-out resumes from ground truth instead of memory.

    Computed 10025,136

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    app-store-optimization

    App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist

    Computed 10015,385

    wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

    citation-audit

    Use it for operations and research tasks; the detail page covers purpose, installation, and practical steps.

    Computed 10014,706

    prowler-cloud/prowler

    postgresql-indexing

    PostgreSQL indexing best practices for Prowler: index design, partial indexes, partitioned table indexing, EXPLAIN ANALYZE validation, concurrent operations, monitoring, and maintenance. Trigger: When creating or modifying PostgreSQL indexes, analyzing query performance with EXPLAIN, debugging slow queries, reviewing index usage statistics, reindexing, dropping indexes, or working with partitioned table indexes. Also trigger when discussing index strategies, partial indexes, or index maintenance