---
name: kanban-orchestrator
description: Decomposition playbook + specialist-roster conventions + anti-temptation rules for an orchestrator profile routing work through Kanban. The "don't do the work yourself" rule and the basic lifecycle are auto-injected into every kanban worker's system prompt; this skill is the deeper playbook when you're specifically playing the orchestrator role.
version: 2.0.0
platforms: [linux, macos, windows]
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [kanban, multi-agent, orchestration, routing]
    related_skills: [kanban-worker]
---

# Kanban Orchestrator — Decomposition Playbook

> The **core worker lifecycle** (including the `kanban_create` fan-out pattern and the "decompose, don't execute" rule) is auto-injected into every kanban process via the `KANBAN_GUIDANCE` system-prompt block. This skill is the deeper playbook when you're an orchestrator profile whose whole job is routing.

## When to use the board (vs. just doing the work)

Create Kanban tasks when any of these are true:

1. **Multiple specialists are needed.** Research + analysis + writing is three profiles.
2. **The work should survive a crash or restart.** Long-running, recurring, or important.
3. **The user might want to interject.** Human-in-the-loop at any step.
4. **Multiple subtasks can run in parallel.** Fan-out for speed.
5. **Review / iteration is expected.** A reviewer profile loops on drafter output.
6. **The audit trail matters.** Board rows persist in SQLite forever.

If *none* of those apply — it's a small one-shot reasoning task — use `delegate_task` instead or answer the user directly.

## The anti-temptation rules

Your job description says "route, don't execute." The rules that enforce that:

- **Do not execute the work yourself.** Your restricted toolset usually doesn't even include terminal/file/code/web for implementation. If you find yourself "just fixing this quickly" — stop and create a task for the right specialist.
- **For any concrete task, create a Kanban task and assign it.** Every single time.
- **Split multi-lane requests before creating cards.** A user prompt can contain several independent workstreams. Extract those lanes first, then create one card per lane instead of bundling unrelated work into a single implementer card.
- **Run independent lanes in parallel.** If two cards do not need each other's output, leave them unlinked so the dispatcher can fan them out. Link only true data dependencies.
- **If no specialist fits, ask the user which profile to create.** Do not default to doing it yourself under "close enough."
- **Decompose, route, and summarize — that's the whole job.**

## The standard specialist roster (convention)

Unless the user's setup has customized profiles, assume these exist. Adjust to whatever the user actually has — ask if you're unsure.

| Profile | Does | Typical workspace |
|---|---|---|
| `researcher` | Reads sources, gathers facts, writes findings | `scratch` |
| `analyst` | Synthesizes, ranks, de-dupes. Consumes multiple `researcher` outputs | `scratch` |
| `writer` | Drafts prose in the user's voice | `scratch` or `dir:` into their Obsidian vault |
| `reviewer` | Reads output, leaves findings, gates approval | `scratch` |
| `backend-eng` | Writes server-side code | `worktree` |
| `frontend-eng` | Writes client-side code | `worktree` |
| `ops` | Runs scripts, manages services, handles deployments | `dir:` into ops scripts repo |
| `pm` | Writes specs, acceptance criteria | `scratch` |

## Decomposition playbook

### Step 1 — Understand the goal

Ask clarifying questions if the goal is ambiguous. Cheap to ask; expensive to spawn the wrong fleet.

### Step 2 — Sketch the task graph

Before creating anything, draft the graph out loud (in your response to the user). Treat every concrete workstream as a candidate card:

1. Extract the lanes from the request.
2. Assign each lane to the best specialist.
3. Decide whether each lane is independent or gated by another lane.
4. Create independent lanes as parallel cards with no parent links.
5. Create synthesis/review/integration cards with parent links to the lanes they depend on.

Examples of prompts that should fan out:

- "Build an app" -> `designer` for product/UI direction and `frontend-eng` or `backend-eng` for implementation, with a later integration/review card if needed.
- "Fix blockers and check model variants" -> one implementation card for the blocker fixes plus one discovery/research card for config/source verification. A final reviewer card can depend on both.
- "Research docs and implement" -> a docs-research card can run in parallel with a codebase-discovery card; implementation waits only if it truly needs those findings.
- "Analyze this screenshot and find the related code" -> `observer` handles visual analysis while an explorer-style profile searches the codebase.

Words like "also," "finally," or "and" do not automatically imply a dependency. They often mean "make sure this is covered before reporting back." Only link tasks when one card cannot start until another card's output exists.

Example for "Analyze whether we should migrate to Postgres":

```
T1  researcher        research: Postgres cost vs current
T2  researcher        research: Postgres performance vs current
T3  analyst           synthesize migration recommendation       parents: T1, T2
T4  writer            draft decision memo                       parents: T3
```

Show this to the user. Let them correct it before you create anything.

### Step 3 — Create tasks and link

```python
t1 = kanban_create(
    title="research: Postgres cost vs current",
    assignee="researcher",
    body="Compare estimated infrastructure costs, migration costs, and ongoing ops costs over a 3-year window. Sources: AWS/GCP pricing, team time estimates, current Postgres bills from peers.",
    tenant=os.environ.get("HERMES_TENANT"),
)["task_id"]

t2 = kanban_create(
    title="research: Postgres performance vs current",
    assignee="researcher",
    body="Compare query latency, throughput, and scaling characteristics at our expected data volume (~500GB, 10k QPS peak). Sources: benchmark papers, public case studies, pgbench results if easy.",
)["task_id"]

t3 = kanban_create(
    title="synthesize migration recommendation",
    assignee="analyst",
    body="Read the findings from T1 (cost) and T2 (performance). Produce a 1-page recommendation with explicit trade-offs and a go/no-go call.",
    parents=[t1, t2],
)["task_id"]

t4 = kanban_create(
    title="draft decision memo",
    assignee="writer",
    body="Turn the analyst's recommendation into a 2-page memo for the CTO. Match the tone of previous decision memos in the team's knowledge base.",
    parents=[t3],
)["task_id"]
```

`parents=[...]` gates promotion — children stay in `todo` until every parent reaches `done`, then auto-promote to `ready`. No manual coordination needed; the dispatcher and dependency engine handle it.

### Step 4 — Complete your own task

If you were spawned as a task yourself (e.g. `planner` profile was assigned `T0: "investigate Postgres migration"`), mark it done with a summary of what you created:

```python
kanban_complete(
    summary="decomposed into T1-T4: 2 researchers parallel, 1 analyst on their outputs, 1 writer on the recommendation",
    metadata={
        "task_graph": {
            "T1": {"assignee": "researcher", "parents": []},
            "T2": {"assignee": "researcher", "parents": []},
            "T3": {"assignee": "analyst", "parents": ["T1", "T2"]},
            "T4": {"assignee": "writer", "parents": ["T3"]},
        },
    },
)
```

### Step 5 — Report back to the user

Tell them what you created in plain prose:

> I've queued 4 tasks:
> - **T1** (researcher): cost comparison
> - **T2** (researcher): performance comparison, in parallel with T1
> - **T3** (analyst): synthesizes T1 + T2 into a recommendation
> - **T4** (writer): turns T3 into a CTO memo
>
> The dispatcher will pick up T1 and T2 now. T3 starts when both finish. You'll get a gateway ping when T4 completes. Use the dashboard or `hermes kanban tail <id>` to follow along.

## Common patterns

**Fan-out + fan-in (research → synthesize):** N `researcher` tasks with no parents, one `analyst` task with all of them as parents.

**Parallel implementation + validation:** one implementer card makes the change while one explorer/researcher card verifies config, docs, or source mapping. A reviewer card can depend on both. Do not make the implementer own unrelated verification just because the user mentioned both in one sentence.

**Pipeline with gates:** `pm → backend-eng → reviewer`. Each stage's `parents=[previous_task]`. Reviewer blocks or completes; if reviewer blocks, the operator unblocks with feedback and respawns.

**Same-profile queue:** 50 tasks, all assigned to `translator`, no dependencies between them. Dispatcher serializes — translator processes them in priority order, accumulating experience in their own memory.

**Human-in-the-loop:** Any task can `kanban_block()` to wait for input. Dispatcher respawns after `/unblock`. The comment thread carries the full context.

## Pitfalls

**Bundling independent lanes into one card.** If the user asks for two independent outcomes, create two cards. Example: "fix blockers and check model variants" is not one fixer task; create a fixer/engineer card for the fixes and an explorer/researcher card for the variant check, then optionally gate review on both.

**Over-linking because of wording.** "Finally check X" may still be parallel with implementation if X is static config, docs, or source discovery. Link it after implementation only when the check depends on the implementation result.

**Forgetting dependency links.** If the task graph says `research -> implement -> review`, do not create all tasks as independent ready cards. Use parent links so implement/review cannot run before their inputs exist.

**Reassignment vs. new task.** If a reviewer blocks with "needs changes," create a NEW task linked from the reviewer's task — don't re-run the same task with a stern look. The new task is assigned to the original implementer profile.

**Argument order for links.** `kanban_link(parent_id=..., child_id=...)` — parent first. Mixing them up demotes the wrong task to `todo`.

**Don't pre-create the whole graph if the shape depends on intermediate findings.** If T3's structure depends on what T1 and T2 find, let T3 exist as a "synthesize findings" task whose own first step is to read parent handoffs and plan the rest. Orchestrators can spawn orchestrators.

**Tenant inheritance.** If `HERMES_TENANT` is set in your env, pass `tenant=os.environ.get("HERMES_TENANT")` on every `kanban_create` call so child tasks stay in the same namespace.

## Recovering stuck workers

When a worker profile keeps crashing, hallucinating, or getting blocked by its own mistakes (usually: wrong model, missing skill, broken credential), the kanban dashboard flags the task with a ⚠ badge and opens a **Recovery** section in the drawer. Three primary actions:

1. **Reclaim** (or `hermes kanban reclaim <task_id>`) — abort the running worker immediately and reset the task to `ready`. The existing claim TTL is ~15 min; this is the fast path out.
2. **Reassign** (or `hermes kanban reassign <task_id> <new-profile> --reclaim`) — switch the task to a different profile and let the dispatcher pick it up with a fresh worker.
3. **Change profile model** — the dashboard prints a copy-paste hint for `hermes -p <profile> model` since profile config lives on disk; edit it in a terminal, then Reclaim to retry with the new model.

Hallucination warnings appear on tasks where a worker's `kanban_complete(created_cards=[...])` claim included card ids that don't exist or weren't created by the worker's profile (the gate blocks the completion), or where the free-form summary references `t_<hex>` ids that don't resolve (advisory prose scan, non-blocking). Both produce audit events that persist even after recovery actions — the trail stays for debugging.
