Cognitive Workflows

Multi-LLM patterns for complex reasoning, based on Anthropic's agent research.

Quick Reference

Pattern	When to Use	Example
Chain	Sequential transformations	Data → Clean → Analyze → Format
Parallel	Multiple perspectives needed	Stakeholder impact analysis
Route	Input determines handling	Support ticket classification
Orchestrator	Subtasks depend on input	Adaptive content generation
Evaluator	Quality is critical	Iterative code review

Pattern 1: Chain

Sequential processing where each step builds on previous output.

When to Use

• Multi-step transformations
• Pipeline processing
• When order matters

Template

Step 1: [First transformation]
Input: {input}
Output: [processed result]

Step 2: [Second transformation]
Input: [Step 1 output]
Output: [further processed]

Step 3: [Final transformation]
Input: [Step 2 output]
Output: [final result]

Example: Technical Decision Analysis

CHAIN: Analyze technical decision

Step 1 - Extract Facts
Input: "{decision_context}"
Extract: Key constraints, requirements, stakeholders

Step 2 - Identify Options
Input: [Step 1 facts]
Generate: 2-3 viable approaches with trade-offs

Step 3 - Evaluate Against DMMF
Input: [Step 2 options]
Score each option on:
- Cognitive fit (matches mental model?)
- Affective impact (quality/testing implications?)
- Conative alignment (supports values/goals?)
- Reflective potential (allows iteration?)

Step 4 - Synthesize Recommendation
Input: [Step 3 evaluation]
Output: Recommended approach with rationale

---

Pattern 2: Parallel

Process same input through multiple independent lenses simultaneously.

When to Use

• Multiple valid perspectives exist
• Stakeholder analysis
• Comparative evaluation
• Risk assessment

Template

<parallel_analysis>
  <perspective name="[Lens 1]">
    Analyze {input} from [perspective 1]
  </perspective>

  <perspective name="[Lens 2]">
    Analyze {input} from [perspective 2]
  </perspective>

  <perspective name="[Lens 3]">
    Analyze {input} from [perspective 3]
  </perspective>
</parallel_analysis>

<synthesis>
  Integrate insights from all perspectives
</synthesis>

Example: Career Decision Analysis

<parallel_analysis topic="{career_opportunity}">

  <perspective name="Financial">
    - Compensation analysis
    - Growth trajectory
    - Financial stability
  </perspective>

  <perspective name="Technical">
    - Stack alignment
    - Learning opportunities
    - Technical challenge level
  </perspective>

  <perspective name="Strategic">
    - Career trajectory fit
    - Network effects
    - Long-term positioning
  </perspective>

  <perspective name="Personal">
    - Work-life balance
    - Values alignment
    - Geographic considerations
  </perspective>

</parallel_analysis>

<synthesis>
  Weight: Financial (30%), Technical (25%), Strategic (25%), Personal (20%)
  Recommendation: [integrated decision]
</synthesis>

---

Pattern 3: Route

Classify input and direct to specialized handling.

When to Use

• Different input types need different approaches
• Expertise domains are distinct
• Efficiency requires specialization

Template

<router>
  <classify>
    Analyze input: {input}
    Determine category from: [category_list]
  </classify>

  <routes>
    <route category="[A]" handler="[specialized_prompt_A]"/>
    <route category="[B]" handler="[specialized_prompt_B]"/>
    <route category="[C]" handler="[specialized_prompt_C]"/>
  </routes>
</router>

Example: Development Task Router

<router input="{task_description}">

  <classify>
    Categories: debugging, feature, refactor, documentation, research

    <reasoning>
      Analyze task keywords, urgency, scope
    </reasoning>

    <selection>[chosen_category]</selection>
  </classify>

  <routes>
    <route category="debugging">
      Mode: Direct, minimal ceremony
      Focus: Root cause → Fix → Verify
      Output: Code changes + brief explanation
    </route>

    <route category="feature">
      Mode: Structured planning
      Focus: Requirements → Design → Implement → Test
      Output: Implementation with tests
    </route>

    <route category="refactor">
      Mode: Careful analysis
      Focus: Current state → Target state → Migration path
      Output: Incremental changes preserving behavior
    </route>

    <route category="documentation">
      Mode: Clear communication
      Focus: Audience → Structure → Content
      Output: Organized documentation
    </route>

    <route category="research">
      Mode: Exploratory
      Focus: Question → Sources → Synthesis
      Output: Findings with citations
    </route>
  </routes>

</router>

---

Pattern 4: Orchestrator-Workers

Central coordinator dynamically assigns subtasks to specialized workers.

When to Use

• Complex tasks with unknown subtask structure
• Multiple approaches should be explored
• Coordination is needed across specialists

Template

<orchestrator task="{complex_task}">

  <analysis>
    Understand the task deeply.
    Identify 2-4 valuable approaches.
  </analysis>

  <task_breakdown>
    <subtask type="[approach_1]">
      [specific instructions for this approach]
    </subtask>
    <subtask type="[approach_2]">
      [specific instructions for this approach]
    </subtask>
  </task_breakdown>

</orchestrator>

<workers>
  <worker type="[approach_1]">
    Execute subtask with full context of original task.
    <response>[worker_1_output]</response>
  </worker>

  <worker type="[approach_2]">
    Execute subtask with full context of original task.
    <response>[worker_2_output]</response>
  </worker>
</workers>

<synthesis>
  Combine worker outputs into final result.
</synthesis>

Example: Code Review Orchestrator

<orchestrator task="Review PR: {pr_description}">

  <analysis>
    This PR touches: [files_changed]
    Key concerns: correctness, performance, maintainability, security
  </analysis>

  <task_breakdown>
    <subtask type="correctness">
      Verify logic, edge cases, error handling
    </subtask>
    <subtask type="performance">
      Identify bottlenecks, unnecessary operations, scaling issues
    </subtask>
    <subtask type="maintainability">
      Assess readability, documentation, test coverage
    </subtask>
    <subtask type="security">
      Check input validation, authentication, data exposure
    </subtask>
  </task_breakdown>

</orchestrator>

<workers>
  <worker type="correctness">
    <response>
      [specific correctness findings]
    </response>
  </worker>
  <!-- other workers -->
</workers>

<synthesis>
  Priority issues: [critical_findings]
  Suggestions: [improvement_ideas]
  Approval: [approve/request_changes]
</synthesis>

---

Pattern 5: Evaluator-Optimizer

Iterative refinement loop with explicit evaluation criteria.

When to Use

• Quality is paramount
• Clear success criteria exist
• Willing to trade latency for quality

Template

<iteration_loop max_iterations="3">

  <generate>
    Create initial output for: {task}
  </generate>

  <evaluate criteria="[quality_criteria]">
    Score each criterion 1-5:
    - [criterion_1]: [score] - [reason]
    - [criterion_2]: [score] - [reason]
    - [criterion_3]: [score] - [reason]

    Overall: [pass/fail]
    Specific improvements needed: [list]
  </evaluate>

  <optimize if="fail">
    Address each improvement:
    [refined_output]
  </optimize>

  <repeat until="pass OR max_iterations"/>

</iteration_loop>

Example: Technical Writing Optimizer

<iteration_loop task="Write API documentation for {endpoint}">

  <generate>
    [Initial documentation draft]
  </generate>

  <evaluate>
    Criteria:
    - Completeness: Does it cover all parameters? [score]
    - Clarity: Can a new developer understand it? [score]
    - Examples: Are code samples provided? [score]
    - Accuracy: Does it match implementation? [score]

    Threshold: All criteria >= 4
    Status: [pass/fail]

    Improvements needed:
    - [specific_improvement_1]
    - [specific_improvement_2]
  </evaluate>

  <optimize>
    [Refined documentation addressing feedback]
  </optimize>

</iteration_loop>

---

Combining Patterns

Patterns can be composed for complex workflows:

Route → determines which Chain to use
Chain → each step uses Parallel analysis
Orchestrator → coordinates multiple Evaluator loops

Example: Full Technical Decision Workflow

1. ROUTE: Classify decision type
   → Architecture | Technology | Process | Team

2. ORCHESTRATOR: Break down by decision type
   → Generate relevant subtasks

3. PARALLEL (per subtask): Analyze from multiple angles
   → Technical, Business, Risk, Timeline

4. CHAIN: Synthesize findings
   → Gather → Weight → Recommend → Validate

5. EVALUATOR: Refine recommendation
   → Check completeness, actionability, alignment

---

Integration with DMMF

These patterns map to cognitive dimensions:

Pattern	DMMF Dimension	Why
Chain	Cognitive	Sequential decomposition
Parallel	Reflective	Multiple perspectives
Route	Cognitive	Classification/categorization
Orchestrator	Conative	Goal-directed coordination
Evaluator	Affective	Quality as non-negotiable

---

References

• Anthropic Patterns - Full implementations
• Building Effective Agents - Original research