What agent orchestration is.
Twenty statements I keep coming back to when I build, ship, and run agent systems. Lifted from production: Three-Body Agent (the autonomous PR pipeline), Jano (the local-first LLM router), and the smaller orchestrators that sit between them.
-
01
Agent orchestration is what happens when you turn one AI into a small team.
Instead of asking one chatbot to do everything, you split the work across a few smaller agents, each with one job. One drafts, one checks, one decides. They never talk to each other directly; a tiny program in the middle picks who runs next and what they get to see. In Three-Body Agent that middle program is about fifty lines of code and the three agents never share notes, only the queue between them.
-
02
Each agent has one job, like specialists in a hospital.
You would not ask one doctor to do surgery, fill prescriptions, and run X-rays. Same idea here: each agent gets a narrow role, like "write," "review," or "decide." Swap the AI behind a role and the rest of the team keeps working the same way, because the job description did not change. Claude Code's subagents work like this already.
-
03
When one agent messes up, the next one catches it.
AI makes confident mistakes all the time. If the same one is doing everything, the mistake gets baked in. If a separate agent reviews the work with a different goal in mind, the mistake gets logged and rejected. In Three-Body Agent one agent writes code, another tries to break it, and a third decides who is right; that argument is what stops bad code from shipping.
-
04
This is the difference between chatting with AI and building with AI.
A chat is something you read once and close. A pipeline runs without you, writes down what it did, retries when things break, and reports back in the morning. Same models, different shape. Jano routes AI requests at my desk overnight while I sleep; a chat window would be useless for that.
-
05
The point of using multiple agents is not more thinking. It is different opinions.
Three agents told to agree with each other will always agree. That is useless. The trick is giving each one a different reason to win: one earns points for finding bugs, another for dismissing them, a third for breaking the tie. When their goals clash, the disagreement actually means something. A panel of three optimistic reviewers from a tutorial is worse than one optimist and one skeptic.
Glad you're here.
Orchestration is one of the few things in AI worth thinking hard about. Drop your email and the full twenty land in your inbox, free, so you can keep them, send to a friend, or quote them back at me later. The list opens up below at the same time.
One email, on the spot. No follow-up sequence. Unsubscribe in one click.