Multi-Agent Orchestration: Three Working Patterns

2026-05-07
Section 1 · TaxonomyTopologies, not technologies

When you need more than one agent — three patterns to know.

A single agent has limits. Multi-agent systems have a different set of limits. The choice of topology is an architectural commitment with downstream consequences for cost, debuggability, and accountability.

Top-down

Supervisor / Hierarchy

LeadAgent 1Agent 2Agent 3

Fits when

A clear decomposition exists. The supervisor acts as the planner and accountable owner; sub-agents are specialists.

Structural cost

Single point of failure. The supervisor's reasoning bottlenecks the whole workflow. Easiest to audit.

Lateral

Swarm / Peer-to-Peer

A1A2A3A4A5

Fits when

Tasks are emergent, parallelizable, and tolerant of duplicate work. Useful for exploration and divergent thinking.

Structural cost

Non-determinism. Two runs of the same input produce different traces. Hardest to audit; expect chatty token bills.

Mediated

Blackboard / Shared State

Shared StateA1A2A3A4

Fits when

Specialist agents need to coordinate without direct communication — pattern fits long-running, multi-stage workflows.

Structural cost

The shared state becomes the integration contract. Schema drift breaks every agent. Locking and consistency are now your problem.