---

name: context-topology description: "Master Claude Code's context primitives (Skill, Task, Command) and orchestration patterns. Use when designing agent workflows, understanding why some patterns work while others fail (e.g., Task→Task is forbidden but Skill→Skill is allowed), or implementing Chain of Experts architectures. Not for writing prompts or content generation." agent: general-purpose context: fork

Context Topology & Orchestration Patterns

Core Insight: Optimal orchestration is not about writing better prompts—it's about managing context topology. Claude Code is a modular network of agents, not a single chat.

---

The Four Primitives

Claude Code provides four primitives for delegation, each with a distinct Memory Mode:

Primitive	Memory Mode	Description
Skill	Shared	Content injects into current conversation. Preserves context, sees full history. Use for heuristics, code standards, "How-To" guides.
Skill + context: fork	Isolated	Runs in a clean context (forked from parent). Only sees CLAUDE.md and skill content. Use for unbiased specialists (Linter, Security Auditor).
Task	Forked	Creates a new agent instance with full isolation. System prompt = subagent body. Keeps "noise" (bash logs, diffs) out of main context.
Command	Injected	Entry point using @file or !cmd syntax for deterministic runtime state.

Syntax Summary

# Skill (shared context)
Skill(skill-name)

# Skill (isolated context)
<!-- In SKILL.md frontmatter: -->
---
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
skills:
  - helper-skill
---

# Task (forked agent)
Task(subagent-name)
Task(subagent-name, run_in_background=True)

# Command (injected)
!`git status`
@path/to/file.md

---

The Recursion Loophole

Critical Constraint

Pattern	Status	Why
Task → Task	FORBIDDEN	Recursion blocker prevents infinite agent spawning
Skill(fork) → Skill(fork)	ALLOWED	Skill loophole bypasses recursion limit

Why This Matters

When you need more than 3 levels of depth:

❌ WRONG: Task → Task (crashes at level 2)
✅ RIGHT: Task → Skill(fork) → Skill(fork) → Skill(fork)

The Chain of Experts pattern exploits this loophole:

Level 1 (Main):     Conductor. Holds TaskList state.
Level 2 (Forked):   Architect. Researches, creates JSON plan.
Level 3 (Forked):   Implementer. Executes edits, runs tests.
Level 4 (Forked):   Verifier. Validates output, returns pass/fail.

---

Chain of Experts Pattern

A multi-phase workflow that keeps each phase isolated from context pollution.

Architecture

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Main Agent (Conductor)                              │
│ - Holds TaskList state                             │
│ - Spawns Level 2 with Task()                        │
│ - Receives summary, not full logs                   │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                        │
                        ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Level 2: Architect (Skill + context: fork)          │
│ - agent: Plan (read-only, cannot edit)              │
│ - Reads codebase, creates execution plan            │
│ - Returns: JSON or markdown plan                    │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                        │
                        ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Level 3: Implementer (Task or Skill + context: fork)│
│ - agent: general-purpose                            │
│ - Executes plan, performs edits                     │
│ - Runs tests, fixes failures internally             │
│ - Returns: 5-line summary                           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                        │
                        ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Level 4: Verifier (Skill + context: fork)           │
│ - agent: Explore or general-purpose                 │
│ - Validates work without implementation bias        │
│ - Returns: Pass/Fail with evidence                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

When to Use Each Level

Level	Use When	Agent Type
2 (Architect)	Need research, planning, or design decisions	agent: Plan
3 (Implementer)	Heavy editing, test running, complex execution	agent: general-purpose
4 (Verifier)	Need unbiased validation, security scan, lint	agent: Explore or agent: general-purpose

---

Advanced Patterns

1. Background Auditor Pattern

Run parallel workflows while main agent continues work:

# Main agent continues UI changes
Task("security-audit", run_in_background=True)

# When Task finishes, it "interrupts" with summary

Use when:

• Long-running CI/CD scripts
• Security scans on entire repo
• Parallel feature work and verification

2. Skill Sandwich Pattern

Verification loop where the worker checks its own work:

Main → Skill(define_criteria) → Task(implement) → Skill(fork:linter) → Main

Why it works: Level 3 (Linter) has zero knowledge of implementation struggle—no bias from seeing "I've been trying for 20 messages."

3. Dispatcher Skill Pattern

A skill that analyzes requests and routes to appropriate handlers:

---
name: dispatcher
description: "Analyzes requests and routes to appropriate handler. Use when unsure which primitive to use or when work needs distribution."
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
---

Logic:

1. Analyze request complexity
2. Select primitive (Task vs Skill vs Skill(fork))
3. Spawn appropriate handler
4. Return result to parent

4. Context Compaction Defense

Since Claude Code auto-compacts at 95% capacity, move procedural knowledge to modular rules:

# Instead of in a skill:
"Use this pattern for testing..."

# Put in .claude/rules/testing.md:
- Test patterns, assertions, coverage targets

Result: Modular rules load into EVERY subagent and forked skill by default.

---

Decision Matrix

Which Primitive for the Goal?

Goal	Primitive	Why
Exploration	Skill(context: fork) + agent: Explore	Fastest, cheapest, cannot break code
High-volume edits	Task(subagent)	Keeps main context clean
Strict compliance	Skill(context: fork)	No context contamination
User shortcuts	Command	@ and ! for determinism
Safety enforcement	Hooks	Survives across subagents

Which Agent Type for Forked Skills?

Agent Type	Capabilities	Restrictions	Use When
Explore	Read-only tools	No Write, Edit, Task	Research, code analysis
Plan	Read-only tools	No Write, Edit	Creating execution plans
general-purpose	All tools	None	Heavy lifting, editing
Bash	Terminal commands	Shell operations only	Git ops, builds, scripts

When to Fork Context?

Scenario	Context Mode	Example
Need unbiased specialist	context: fork	Linter, Security Auditor
Heavy lifting (many edits)	Task()	Refactoring 20 files
Reusable worker	Skill(fork)	"Extract data from file"
Keep main context clean	Task()	Long test runs with logs

---

Common Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern 1: Task→Task (True Subagent Nesting)

❌ WRONG:
Task(subagent-a)  # Level 1 (true subagent spawn)
→ Task(subagent-b)  # BLOCKED: subagents cannot spawn subagents

⚠ IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:

• Task() spawns true subagents (recursion blocked)
• Skill(context: fork) runs inline with context isolation (ALLOWED to chain)

Anti-Pattern 2: Missing context: fork

❌ WRONG:
---
# Missing context: fork - sees parent history
name: linter
---
Use the Bash tool to run linting...

Problem: Linter sees previous implementation attempts—biased validation.

Pattern: Chain of Experts (Valid)

✅ CORRECT:
Skill(skill-a)                    # Phase 1: Setup (shared context)
→ Skill(skill-b, context: fork)   # Phase 2: Analysis (isolated)
→ Skill(skill-c, context: fork)   # Phase 3: Validation (isolated)

Benefit: First skill establishes shared context, subsequent forked phases run with isolation while maintaining bidirectional information flow. Skill(context: fork) runs inline (not true subagent), allowing chaining.

⚠ Best Practice: First skill should be non-forked (shared context) to anchor the chain. All-forked chains may lose the return path to the original context.

⚠ Note: Use judiciously—each fork has overhead. Reserve for multi-phase workflows requiring clean separation.

Anti-Pattern 4: All-Inline Skill Chain

❌ WRONG:
Skill(skill-a)  # All shared context
→ Skill(skill-b)
→ Skill(skill-c)

Problem: Zero forked skills means context injection only—no reliable return path to original skill. Primitives inject new context but don't maintain chain coherence. Execution may not return to skill-a as expected.

Fix: First skill shared context, subsequent skills forked:

✅ CORRECT:
Skill(skill-a)                    # Anchor with shared context
→ Skill(skill-b, context: fork)   # Forked isolation
→ Skill(skill-c, context: fork)   # Forked isolation

Anti-Pattern 5: Fork for trivial tasks

❌ WRONG:
---
context: fork
---
What is 2 + 2?

Problem: Fork has overhead. Inline execution is cheaper.

---

Frontmatter Reference

Skill Frontmatter

---
name: skill-name              # Max 64 chars, lowercase, hyphens
description: "When to use. Not for exclusions."
context: fork                 # Omit for shared context
agent: general-purpose        # Only if context: fork
skills:                       # Preload skills for forked context
  - helper-skill
allowed-tools:                # Reactive constraint (optional)
  - Read
  - Write
---

Command Frontmatter

---
description: "When to use this command."
---

---

Memory Hierarchy

What loads into which context:

Context	Loads
Main	CLAUDE.md, CLAUDE.local.md, .claude/rules/*, loaded skills
Task (subagent)	CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules/*, subagent body
Skill(fork)	CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules/*, skill content
Command	@file content, !cmd output

Key insight: Task and Skill(fork) do NOT see the parent conversation. This is the isolation mechanism.

---

Summary

1. Choose primitive by memory mode: Shared (Skill), Isolated (Skill+fork), Forked (Task), Injected (Command)
2. Exploit the recursion loophole: Task→Task forbidden, Skill→Skill allowed
3. Chain Experts for clean contexts: Architect → Implementer → Verifier
4. Use Task for heavy lifting: Keeps main context free of noise
5. Use Skill(fork) for unbiased specialists: Linters, validators, auditors
6. Use Commands for deterministic entry points: @file, !cmd injection