The Architecture Guide: 6 Agentic Patterns That Determine Success or Failure

Your architecture determines whether your AI agents succeed or fail. Most developers start with a single "super-agent" containing every tool and capability—great for demos, but unsustainable in production.

Agentic design patterns solve these problems by breaking monoliths into coordinated systems. Each pattern balances simplicity, performance, cost, and capability differently.

This guide explores 6 battle-tested patterns—from simplest to most sophisticated—showing when to use each, what problems they solve, and what trade-offs they introduce. Understanding these patterns is the difference between an agent that frustrates users and one that delights them.

Pattern 1: Central Agent

The monolithic approach: one agent, all capabilities

This pattern is most likely the one you are currently using or will learn about in a tutorial. This pattern is great for demos and learning as it provides a simple and straightforward approach. The best way to think about this pattern is to imagine an all-knowing individual who has access to all tools and resources all the time.

When to Use

• Prototyping and MVPs requiring speed
• Simple, single-domain tasks (3-5 functions)
• Low-volume, high-value interactions
• Applications where agents need all capabilities for every request

Downsides

• Context Explosion — Every tool loads for every request. A simple permit query carries zoning databases, case management, payment portals, and document APIs whether needed or not. Typical: 50K-150K tokens per interaction.
• Tool Selection Tax — With 15+ tools, agents spend 2-3 seconds evaluating each one, burning tokens to decide not to use most.
• Maintenance Complexity — Adding capabilities requires updating massive prompts and regression testing everything. Tool conflicts create cascading issues.
• Debugging Nightmares — Tracing failures through 20 integrated systems with massive log files is painful.

Real-World Example: Municipal Citizen Services Portal — A mid-sized city (250K population) deployed a central agent handling permit status, property tax lookup, issue reporting, zoning info, meeting schedules, public records requests, and recreation registration. Results: 92K tokens per request, 75% needed only 1-2 capabilities.

Pattern 2: Sequential Chain

Linear flow through specialized agents

This multi-agentic pattern takes a linear approach to agent interaction. A user or system provides a stimulus. This stimulus (let's say a message) is passed from one agent to another, with each agent only knowing and interacting with its neighbor. This pattern is good for controlling context as any given agent is only aware of its own environment and what should be passed to its neighbors.

When to Use

• Predictable, staged workflows (document review, bill analysis, public records processing)
• Quality gates required at each step
• Clear sequential dependencies where step N requires step N-1
• Domain expertise separation using specialized models

Downsides

• Handoff Tax — Every agent receives the full request and evaluates relevance. Need 3 agents but have 8? You pay for all 8 evaluations.
• Ordering Problem — Sequence matters. Poor agent order yields poor results. Optimal sequencing requires deep workflow understanding.
• Latency Accumulation — Each agent adds processing time, even when some could run in parallel.
• Neighbor Dependency — Agents only see immediate neighbors' outputs. Context can be lost across the chain.
• No Backtracking — Returning to earlier stages is difficult.

Real-World Example: County Contract Review — A county attorney's office built a 6-stage chain: Intake → Conflict Check → Compliance Review → Risk Analysis → Financial Terms → Approval Routing. Results: 18K-28K tokens per agent (vs. 140K+ monolithic), 16-second pipeline, 77% cost reduction.

Pattern 3: Planner-Executor

Strategic planning with distributed execution

This pattern controls context by separating the planning phase (given a stimulus, what is needed to achieve the goal) and execution phase (what needs to be done to get to the goal). This pattern is great for making sure your agentic system only leverages the resources available to complete the task at hand without bringing unnecessary context or capabilities into the workflow.

When to Use

• Variable, complex tasks requiring different capability combinations
• High-volume operations where planning overhead pays off
• Resource optimization with many specialized agents
• Dynamic routing based on case/project type

Downsides

• Planning Overhead — Adds 1-2 LLM calls upfront. For simple tasks, this overhead may exceed central agent costs.
• Planning Quality Dependency — System quality hinges on planner's ability to decompose tasks, route correctly, and handle failures.
• Re-Planning Dilemma — Re-evaluate after each executor? Adds latency but gains adaptability.
• Executor Coordination — Who synthesizes multiple executor results?
• Complexity Growth — With 20 executors, the planner navigates exponential execution orders.

Real-World Example: Public Defender Case Preparation — Planner analyzes cases and routes to relevant executors (avg. 2.8 per case). Results: 3-4 second planning overhead, 52% execution savings, 91% correct first-attempt routing, 58% cost reduction vs. central agent.

Pattern 4: Parallel Processing

Concurrent execution with result aggregation

This pattern optimizes for speed by executing independent sub-tasks simultaneously. When a complex task can be decomposed into multiple independent pieces that don't depend on each other's outputs, parallel processing dramatically reduces latency while maintaining (or improving) result quality.

When to Use

• Truly independent sub-tasks (multi-ordinance review, parallel precedent analysis)
• Data aggregation at scale across multiple systems
• Batch operations (hundreds of non-interacting requests)
• Latency-critical applications (emergency response, real-time research)

Downsides

• Independence Requirement — Sub-tasks must be truly independent. Genuinely independent tasks are rare.
• Aggregation Complexity — Must handle conflicting info, timeouts, partial failures, and priority weighting.
• Concurrency Management — Requires sophisticated infrastructure for simultaneous execution.
• Cost Spikes — 5 parallel agents = 5x cost. Worth it only if time savings justify expense.
• Debugging Complexity — Log correlation across concurrent executions is challenging.

Real-World Example: City Planning Development Review — Six agents run simultaneously. Results: 71% latency reduction (6-8 sec vs. 22-28 sec), 35% cost increase, dramatically improved applicant experience.

Pattern 5: Agent Committee

Dynamic coordination through shared visibility

This pattern provides multiple agents with overlapping or identical capabilities and lets them self-organize around incoming work. Unlike hierarchical patterns, the committee pattern embraces emergent behavior—agents dynamically decide what to work on based on their assessment of the task and their confidence in contributing value.

When to Use

• Highly unpredictable tasks (novel legal questions, unprecedented policy issues)
• Critical decisions needing multiple perspectives
• Expertise overlap where some agents are better suited than others
• Consensus-driven decisions requiring validation
• Adaptive systems learning agent performance over time

Downsides

• Coordination Problem — How do agents coordinate without conflicts? Double work, missed work, or conflicting work.
• Overhead Tax — Every agent evaluates every request. 10 agents = 10 inference calls before work begins.
• Emergent Behavior — Without hierarchy, unexpected patterns emerge that can create biases or bottlenecks.
• Highest Cost — Pay for all agents to see request + participants + coordination + conflict resolution.

Real-World Example: AG Legal Opinion Research — Seven specialized agents evaluate opinion requests. Each "raises hand" with confidence score. Results: Avg. 2.6 agents engage per opinion, 6-8 sec coordination overhead, significantly higher quality.

Pattern 6: Nth Man (The 9th Man)

Institutionalized dissent to prevent groupthink

The Nth Man pattern institutionalizes dissent to prevent groupthink in AI decision-making. When a group of agents reaches consensus on a decision or approach, a designated contrarian agent is required to argue against it—even if the consensus seems perfect. This agent's job is to surface blindspots, identify overlooked risks, and challenge assumptions the majority missed.

When to Use

• High-stakes decisions (litigation strategy, bond approvals, zoning variances, constitutional challenges)
• Cost of error > cost of computation (rights violations, fiscal liability, public safety)
• Known bias patterns (confirmation bias, anchoring in sentencing)
• Regulatory environments requiring documented dissent and audit trails
• Post-incident reviews and policy decisions prone to groupthink

Downsides

• Significant Cost Premium — Committee consensus + Nth Man contrarian + synthesis + human review = most expensive pattern.
• Slows Decision Velocity — Intentionally adds friction. Not for real-time or high-volume operations.
• Nth Man Design Challenge — Must have genuine flaw-finding vs. artificial dissent. Risk of becoming "theater."
• Synthesis Complexity — Weighing consensus vs. dissent is cognitively demanding.
• Decision Paralysis Risk — Need mechanisms to prevent contrarianism from blocking all action.

Real-World Example: DA Charging Decisions — Committee recommends armed robbery. Nth Man challenges cross-racial ID, fingerprint explanation, BB gun classification, and recent appellate reversals. Result: Reduced charge. Over 24 months: prevented 3 wrongful convictions, 87% conviction rate, saved $420K in trial costs.

Choosing Your Pattern: Decision Framework

Final Thoughts

The best pattern is the simplest one meeting your requirements. A well-executed Sequential Chain beats a poorly implemented Committee.

Evolution Path: Central Agent (prototype) → Sequential Chain (cost control) → Planner-Executor (scale) → Parallel Processing (latency) → Agent Committee (complexity) → Nth Man (mission-critical)

Understanding these patterns is not just about technical implementation—it's about matching architectural decisions to real-world constraints, risk profiles, and organizational needs. Choose wisely, start simple, and evolve deliberately.