6.2 KiB
title, date, category, module, problem_type, component, severity, applies_when, tags
| title | date | category | module | problem_type | component | severity | applies_when | tags | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research agent dispatch is intentionally separated across the skill pipeline | 2026-04-05 | skill-design | compound-engineering | architecture_pattern | tooling | low |
|
|
Research agent dispatch is intentionally separated across the skill pipeline
Context
After optimizing the Slack researcher agent to avoid redundant work between ce:brainstorm and ce:plan (commit f7a14b76 on tmchow/slack-analyst-agent), a natural question arose: does the same duplication problem exist for repo-research-analyst and learnings-researcher? Both are dispatched by ce:plan in Phase 1.1 on every run, regardless of whether ce:brainstorm produced an origin document.
Investigation confirmed no duplication exists. The three workflow stages operate on deliberately separated information types, and research agent dispatch follows this separation cleanly.
Guidance
The brainstorm -> plan -> work pipeline separates research by information type:
ce:brainstorm gathers product context (WHAT to build). It performs an inline "Existing Context Scan" -- surface-level file discovery focused on product questions. It does NOT dispatch repo-research-analyst or learnings-researcher. Its output is a requirements document covering product decisions, scope, and success criteria, intentionally excluding implementation details.
ce:plan gathers implementation context (HOW to build it). It ALWAYS dispatches repo-research-analyst (technology, architecture, patterns) and learnings-researcher in Phase 1.1. These produce: tech stack versions, architectural patterns, conventions, file paths, and institutional knowledge from docs/solutions/. This feeds the plan document's Context & Research, Patterns to Follow, Files, and Key Technical Decisions sections. The repo-research-analyst output also drives Phase 1.2 decisions about whether external research agents are needed.
ce:work gathers NO research context independently. It reads the plan document and uses embedded research findings to guide implementation. For bare prompts (no plan), it does a lightweight inline scan -- no agent dispatch. The plan document IS the handoff mechanism from ce:plan's research to ce:work.
When ce:plan receives an origin document from ce:brainstorm, it reads it as primary input (Phase 0.3) but still runs its research agents because they gather categorically different information.
Why This Matters
- Prevents false optimizations. Without understanding the information type separation, a contributor might skip ce:plan's research agents when a brainstorm document exists, breaking the plan's ability to produce implementation-ready guidance.
- Clarifies when pass-through optimizations ARE warranted. The Slack researcher was a genuine redundancy: both ce:brainstorm and ce:plan dispatched the same agent for overlapping information. The fix passed existing context so the agent focuses on gaps. For
repo-research-analystandlearnings-researcher, no such redundancy exists because only ce:plan dispatches them. - Protects the plan document's role as the sole handoff artifact. ce:work depends on the plan containing complete implementation context. If ce:plan's research agents are skipped, ce:work receives an incomplete plan and must improvise.
When to Apply
- When evaluating whether research agent calls across pipeline stages are redundant -- check whether multiple stages dispatch the same agent for overlapping information types.
- When adding a new research agent -- classify whether it gathers product context (brainstorm), implementation context (plan), or execution context (work), and dispatch it from the matching stage only.
- When considering a pass-through optimization like the Slack pattern -- the prerequisite is that TWO stages independently dispatch the same agent. If only one stage dispatches the agent, no optimization is needed.
Examples
No optimization needed (this case):
ce:plan always calls repo-research-analyst even when a brainstorm document exists. Does ce:brainstorm also call it? No -- brainstorm only does an inline product-focused scan. The calls are not redundant; no change needed.
Optimization warranted (Slack pattern):
Both ce-brainstorm and ce-plan dispatched ce-slack-researcher. Fix: when ce-plan finds Slack context in the origin document, pass it to ce-slack-researcher so the agent focuses on gaps. The agent is still called -- it starts from a better baseline.
Anti-pattern -- skipping agents incorrectly:
Removing repo-research-analyst from ce:plan when an origin document exists, reasoning "brainstorm already scanned the repo." The resulting plan lacks architectural patterns, file paths, and convention details. ce:work produces code that ignores existing patterns.
Correct stage placement for a new agent: A "dependency-analyzer" agent that identifies library versions and compatibility constraints gathers implementation context (HOW). It belongs in ce:plan's Phase 1.1, not ce:brainstorm. ce:work will consume its findings via the plan document.
Related
docs/solutions/skill-design/pass-paths-not-content-to-subagents-2026-03-26.md-- related agent dispatch optimization pattern (token efficiency, not deduplication)docs/solutions/skill-design/beta-skills-framework.md-- documents the pipeline chain and the beta-skills rollout pattern that plugs into itdocs/solutions/best-practices/ce-pipeline-end-to-end-learnings-2026-04-17.md-- extends this framing downstream (document-review, ce:review, resolve-pr-feedback) with meta-observations from running the full pipeline end-to-end on a feature- Commit f7a14b76 on
tmchow/slack-analyst-agent-- the Slack researcher pass-through optimization that prompted this analysis - GitHub issue #492 --
repo-research-analystself-recursion bug (fixed, separate concern)