The Five-Agent Research Pattern: Surveying a New LLM Provider Before You Tune It

The Five-Agent Research Pattern#

Adopting a new LLM provider for a coding-agent role looks easy from the docs. Read the model card, copy the partner adapter’s defaults, ship. A week later you find out the provider rejects tool_choice=required in thinking mode, the docs lied about reasoning_content echoing, and your retry loop multiplies the per-turn timeout by 3x because the rate-limit response isn’t JSON.

The docs miss what was patched after release. The community catches what the docs miss. Partner adapters encode lived defaults nobody published. Your own adapter has bugs you can’t see from inside it. Reading any one of these in isolation gets you to “I think I understand this provider.” Reading all five in parallel gets you a knob list, an open-contradictions list, and a list of bugs to fix before the matrix runs. The pattern: spawn 5 parallel research sub-agents, one per angle, then synthesize.

Agentic Workflow Patterns: Plan-Execute-Observe Loops, ReAct, and Task Decomposition

Agentic Workflow Patterns#

An agent without a workflow pattern is a chatbot. What separates an agent from a single-turn LLM call is the loop: observe the environment, reason about what to do, act, observe the result, and decide whether to continue. The loop structure determines everything – how the agent plans, how it recovers from errors, when it stops, and whether it can handle tasks that take minutes or hours.