Software architecture workflow that diagnoses architecture problems, selects the right analysis method, compares options, synthesizes stakeholder input, and produces a recommendation, review, or ADR
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Dispatch and supervise parallel specialist agents with durable task state. Use when automated multi-agent execution is requested.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
実行スコア 未検証
インストール方法を見るインストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Automatically orchestrate multi-agent execution with task decomposition, native/fallback dispatch, memory coordination, progress monitoring, verification, QA cross-review, retry, and result collection.
.agents/oma-config.yaml, .codex/agents/*.toml, .gemini/agents/*.md, or fallback oma agent spawndomain_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.oma verify, and QA cross-review loop.partial or failed; never force completion.| Action | SSL primitive | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Read config and task context | READ | oma config, routing, request |
| Classify task into domain tags | INFER | task text vs each skill's Intent signature |
| Select task references | SELECT | confident domain matches, dependencies, and supported context controls |
| Select dispatch path | SELECT | Native vs fallback |
| Write session state | WRITE | task board and memory files |
| Spawn agents | CALL_TOOL | exposed native role-subagent tool or oma agent spawn |
| Poll progress | READ | progress/result files |
| Run verification | CALL_TOOL | oma verify, tests, QA |
| Update retry state | UPDATE_STATE | loop counters and CD metrics |
| Report final result | NOTIFY | compiled summary |
oma agent spawn <agent-type> <prompt-file> <session-id> --task-id <task.id> -w <workspace>
oma verify agent <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.
| Scope | Resource target |
|---|---|
LOCAL_FS | Session, task-board, progress, result, config files |
PROCESS | Agent CLI processes and verify scripts |
MEMORY | Session state and unresolved decisions |
CODEBASE | Workspaces owned by spawned agents |
target_vendor === current_runtime_vendor and the runtime has a verified native path, use native dispatch.oma agent spawn.Current native executor paths:
.claude/agents/{agent}.md definitions (multiple Agent tool calls in one message run in parallel; results return synchronously — no polling)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/agents/*.toml when supported; otherwise use oma agent spawn.oma agent spawn.codex exec and gemini -p start external CLI sessions. An @agent string in a prompt does not establish native dispatch or apply a custom-role contract.
| Setting | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
| MAX_PARALLEL | 3 | Max concurrent subagents |
| MAX_RECOVERY_ATTEMPTS | 3 | Total retries and exploration hypotheses per task, including the original attempt |
| POLL_INTERVAL | 30s | Status check interval |
| Turn guidance | role-specific | Checkpoint/resume signal, not a hard stop or approval boundary |
These are workflow defaults. Resolve model/vendor, parallelism, and budget settings from project configuration. config/cli-config.yaml supplies the vendor transport registry; it does not select the active vendor or override runtime execution settings.
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"
}
}
}
PHASE 1 - Plan: Reuse the current valid plan or decompose the request; preserve injected session/task/run IDs.
PHASE 1.5 - References: Select task references as described in Entry; record uncertainty and expansion reasons without assuming runtime enforcement.
PHASE 2 - Setup: Create session/task-board artifacts with the current IDs and selected references.
PHASE 3 - Execute: Dispatch ready tasks within MAX_PARALLEL using supported native or fallback context controls.
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 {agent-type} only for backend, frontend, mobile, qa, debug, and pm; then run QA cross-review for every completed implementation
PHASE 5 - Collect: Read claims and run-scoped reports for plan tasks whose checks passed; compile summary without deleting evidence.
| File | Owner | Others |
|---|---|---|
orchestrator-session-{sessionId}.md | orchestrator | read-only |
task-board-{sessionId}.md | orchestrator | read-only |
progress-{agentId}-{taskId}-{runId}-{sessionId}.md | that run | orchestrator reads |
result-{agentId}-{taskId}-{runId}-{sessionId}.md | that run | orchestrator reads |
After each agent completes, enter an iterative review loop, not a single-pass verification.
Agent completes work
↓
[1] Mechanical Self-Check: lint, type-check, tests, diff scope
↓
[2] Verify: For supported types, run `oma verify agent {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
[1] Mechanical Self-Check (formerly "Self-Review"): Before requesting external review, the implementation agent must:
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 {agent-type} --workspace {workspace} --json
backend, frontend, mobile, qa, debug, and pm.db, refactor, architecture, tf-infra, and docs, record that automated verify is unsupported and continue to QA cross-review after the mechanical checks.[3] Cross-Review: Spawn QA agent to review the changes:
docs/CODE-REVIEW.md exists, QA agent uses it as the review checklist| Counter | Max | On Exceeded |
|---|---|---|
| Self-check + fix cycles | 3 | Escalate to cross-review regardless |
| Cross-review rejections | 2 | Report to user with review history |
| Total loop iterations | 5 | Stop recovery; preserve failed checks and return partial or failed |
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. Resolve relevant automated checks before handoff. Ask for approval only when the next action is outside existing authorization.
Maintain one budget per workflow lineage and logical goal: attempts_used, attempts_remaining, and any
configured cost cap. The original attempt, each ordinary retry, and each
exploration hypothesis consume one attempt. Before starting recovery, reserve
the complete next action; do not exceed the budget or start an incomplete
exploration round.
Use the plan's stable lineage_id and task goal_id from ../_shared/runtime/result-contract.md. New task/run/session IDs do not reset that budget. Freeze the full JSON plan at first dispatch; reject recursive planning/review tasks and post-dispatch plan revisions. A contract change requires an explicitly separated new session and lineage.
Classify failures before retrying: PRODUCT_FAILURE follows the remaining product recovery budget; WORKFLOW_EVIDENCE_FAILURE means current product checks passed but completion claims or bindings failed. Automatic resume stops evidence-only replay. Allow at most one metadata-only repair under the existing task and frozen plan, consuming the same budget, then stop with a partial handoff if unresolved. Do not create PM tasks, rerun product planning, or import another workflow's plan-review loop for evidence failures.
partial or failed, never completed.For material corrections or review findings, retain the cause, impact, and evidence in existing task artifacts. Use ../_shared/core/session-metrics.md when a retrospective or separate session summary is useful. Do not score clarification questions or require an RCA based on counters. Resolve the affected work and ask only for a material missing decision.
resources/subagent-prompt-template.mdresources/memory-schema.mdscripts/spawn-agent.sh, scripts/parallel-run.sh, scripts/verify.shtemplates/../_shared/core/skill-routing.mdscripts/verify.sh <agent-type>../_shared/core/session-metrics.md../_shared/core/api-contracts/template.md; read generated contracts from .agents/results/api-contracts/ (run artifact) or docs/plans/contracts/ (durable spec)../_shared/core/context-loading.md../_shared/core/difficulty-guide.md (unresolved scope or dependencies)../_shared/core/clarification-protocol.md../_shared/core/context-budget.md../_shared/core/code-intelligence.md../_shared/core/lessons-learned.md (recurring failure or requested retrospective)まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。
まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。
Software architecture workflow that diagnoses architecture problems, selects the right analysis method, compares options, synthesizes stakeholder input, and produces a recommendation, review, or ADR
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design-first ideation workflow that explores user intent, clarifies constraints, proposes approaches, and produces an approved design document before planning
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Generate Conventional Commits spec git commits (auto-separate by feature)
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Coordinate multiple agents for a complex multi-domain project using PM planning, parallel agent spawning, and QA review
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Thorough version of coordinate - high-quality development workflow with 11 review steps out of 17
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Structured bug diagnosis and fixing workflow that reproduces, diagnoses root cause, applies a minimal fix, writes regression tests, and scans for similar patterns
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。