persona-garden-patch

• is_a::Decision Form
• has_status::Growing Stage
• in_domain::Deep Context Architecture

Functional Types in Agent Taxonomy

Context

The estate accumulated 10+ agent roles over several weeks of development. Initially described informally — “the orchestrator manages the garden,” “the reader assesses citations” — the relationships between agents were implicit. Some coordinated others; some worked alone on bounded tasks; some enforced rules across the whole estate. Without a taxonomy, new agent proposals lacked a framework for evaluating whether they filled a real gap or duplicated an existing function.

The taxonomy emerged from observing what each agent actually does, not from top-down design. Three types were initially identified (orchestrator, worker, boundary guardian). The strategic coordinator was classified as a boundary guardian alongside the constraint enforcer, but this proved inaccurate — one sets architectural direction and coordinates orchestrators, while the other enforces constraints. These are different functions. The introduction of a tactical coordinator spanning precincts confirmed that estate-level coordination was a distinct type, not a variant of boundary enforcement. The fourth type — steward — was added to reflect this.

Decision

Classify all estate agents into four functional types:

Type	Role	Examples
Steward	Estate-level strategic and tactical coordination spanning precincts	Strategic director (Seneschal Persona), tactical coordinator
Orchestrator	Coordinates workers within a precinct	Chancellor Persona (Household), Groundskeeper Persona (Garden)
Worker	Executes commissions in bounded scope	Gardener, Cultivator, Forager, Pruner
Boundary guardian	Enforces constraints across precincts	Chatelaine Persona (privacy/secrets)

Stewards span precincts without managing one. They set direction or translate direction into tactical execution across precincts. Orchestrators deploy workers via commissions within their precinct. Workers report back; orchestrators decide what to act on. Boundary guardians enforce cross-precinct constraints without managing content or coordinating workers.

Consequences

• Every new agent proposal must identify its functional type
• Stewards use high-capability models (strategic judgment); orchestrators use high-capability models (coordination judgment); workers use efficient models by default (execution-focused), high-capability when the task requires depth
• Workers do not write to queues or briefs directly — they report to their orchestrator
• The estate charter documents the taxonomy as the authoritative reference
• Stewards and orchestrators each own a maintenance workstream as their routing sink

Alternatives Considered

• Two types (orchestrator + worker) — the initial model before the boundary guardian was separated from the household orchestrator. Rejected because constraint enforcement is functionally distinct from both coordination and execution
• Three types (orchestrator + worker + boundary guardian) — the strategic coordinator was classified as a boundary guardian. Rejected because strategic coordination (setting direction, resolving disputes) is functionally distinct from constraint enforcement (preventing violations). The misclassification persisted across multiple sessions because both types span precincts — but spanning precincts is a shared trait, not a shared function
• Flat list (no types) — rejected because it provides no framework for evaluating new agent proposals or understanding agent relationships
• Hierarchical model (strategic coordinator at top, then orchestrators, then workers) — considered but the boundary guardian doesn’t fit a hierarchy. The constraint enforcer is a peer to the strategic coordinator, not subordinate

Relations

• depends_on::[[Boundary Guardian as Distinct Agent Type]]↑
  • The third type exists because boundary enforcement was separated from orchestration.
• relates_to::[[Precinct as Organizational Unit]]↑
  • Orchestrators map to precincts; stewards and boundary guardians span them.
• relates_to::Knowledge Estate as Peer Commons Architecture
  • The four types map to the estate’s sovereignty-as-membrane model: stewards maintain the whole membrane, orchestrators manage sections of it, workers do bounded work within sections, boundary guardians prevent leaks.

This site is open source. Improve this page.