# Orchestration Audit Report: S10-f6a224d0

**Session:** f6a224d0-ddc2-488c-b0cc-728fdf21cc08  
**Project:** /home/jared/systems-admin  
**Date:** 2026-07-01T12:37:51.119Z → 2026-07-01T14:02:57.530Z  
**Duration:** ~85 minutes  
**Turns:** 53 assistant, 8 human prompts  

## Summary of Session Work

User requested: Create an orchestration plugin in ~/dev/cc-plugins to version-control and back up the orchestration rules (previously a pilot section in CLAUDE.md).

**Tool usage profile:**
- Bash: 12 calls (exploration, directory creation, testing)
- Write: 5 calls (4 plugin files + 1 scratchpad)
- Read: 4 calls (requirements, CLAUDE.md, marketplace.json, settings.json)
- Edit: 4 calls (revert CLAUDE.md, register in marketplace.json, wire in settings.json)

**Work segmented into phases:**
1. Read requirements and existing pilot section (Lines 28, 50)
2. Explore existing plugin structure via find/grep (Lines 35, 82–115)
3. Create directory tree (Line 119)
4. Write 4 plugin files (Lines 125, 127, 135, 137)
5. Register and integrate: Edit marketplace.json + settings.json (Lines 146, 157)
6. Test the hook (Line 161+)

---

## Seven-Question Rubric Audit

### 1. Are subagents getting called when they should be?

**Verdict: PASS**

**Evidence:** Zero Agent spawns (fact-sheet confirms, jsonl lines 1–183 contain no `Agent` tool_use). Flagged candidate work: Write ×4 spanning 4 distinct plugin files (lines 125, 127, 135, 137).

**Reasoning:** The orchestration policy states "Delegate only when work is parallelizable across independent files/subtasks, spans many files, or needs a large/isolated context." The 4 writes form a single coherent plugin with internal dependencies:
- `inject.py` reads the contents of `ORCHESTRATION.md` at runtime
- `hooks.json` references the path and filename of `inject.py`
- Both depend on `plugin.json` and `ORCHESTRATION.md` for semantic meaning

These are **not independent** — they are coordinated parts of one unit. The work was also integrated with edits to `marketplace.json` and `settings.json` for proper registration (lines 146, 157), which could not have been parallelized with the plugin creation. The single-session orchestration correctly kept this together and did not delegate.

---

### 2. Is the correct model chosen per subagent — highest reasonable quality at lowest cost?

**Verdict: N/A**

**Evidence:** No subagents spawned, so no model selection applies.

---

### 3. Is the orchestrator planning/grouping tasks to maximize efficient context-window use?

**Verdict: PASS**

**Evidence:**
- Phase 1 (exploration): Lines 28, 35, 50, 82–115. Bash grep commands referenced existing plugins (doc-hygiene, memory) and examined hook patterns (`additionalContext`, `hookSpecificOutput` — lines 109, 112, 115) before writing any code. This gathers reference context upfront.
- Phase 2 (creation): Directory structure created (line 119) before writes, making room in context for coordinated writes (lines 125–137).
- Phase 3 (integration): Reads marketplace.json and settings.json (lines 143, 149) *after* writes but *before* edits, ensuring the orchestrator understands what needs to be registered.
- Phase 4 (verification): Bash test of the hook (line 161) to confirm functionality.

Total 25 tool calls (12 Bash + 5 Write + 4 Read + 4 Edit) is reasonable for a full plugin creation task; phasing avoided context bloat.

---

### 4. Is the orchestrator avoiding reading files it does NOT need (that the subagent would read anyway)?

**Verdict: PASS**

**Evidence:**
- Read 1 (line 28): `/home/jared/systems-admin/docs/orchestration-audit-prd.md` — Requirements doc, essential to understand scope.
- Read 2 (line 50): `/home/jared/systems-admin/CLAUDE.md` — Source of the pilot section to be extracted; necessary.
- Read 3 (line 143): `/home/jared/dev/cc-plugins/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json` — Needed to understand how to register the new plugin in the local marketplace. Not redundant with prior exploration (prior Bash calls examined its existence but not its structure).
- Read 4 (line 149): `~/.claude/settings.json` — Needed to understand hook wiring pattern before editing it.

No extraneous reads. Bash exploration (find, grep on existing plugins) was efficient discovery rather than full-file reads, and it directly informed the plugin design (grep for `hookSpecificOutput` — line 115 — led directly to the hook script structure in inject.py).

---

### 5. Is the orchestrator sharing too much context with subagents (filling their windows / clouding judgment)?

**Verdict: N/A**

**Evidence:** No subagents spawned; question does not apply.

---

### 6. Is the orchestrator even following the ORCHESTRATION.md instructions?

**Verdict: PASS**

**Evidence:** Policy from session context:
> "Do single-file, ≤2-tool-call ops directly. Don't delegate them. Delegate only when work is parallelizable across independent files/subtasks, spans many files, or needs a large/isolated context."

Orchestrator invoked no Agent spawns. Boundary condition: 4 Writes (exceeds ≤2 threshold). However:
- The 4 writes are **not parallelizable** (they have internal dependencies as described in Question 1).
- They **span many files**, but those files form one logical unit with coordinated edits and testing in the same session.
- The orchestrator correctly identified that "spans many files" applies only when files are independent subtasks. These are not. Keeping them in a single session is appropriate.

Additionally, the Bash exploration phase (lines 82–115) is within the policy: "A short orienting Read before delegating is fine when the target file/path is uncertain. Don't delegate the orienting step itself." The orchestrator's exploration of existing plugin examples informed the design without delegating.

---

### 7. Is the orchestrator requesting/receiving back only the context it needs, rather than a full context dump from the subagent?

**Verdict: N/A**

**Evidence:** No subagents spawned; question does not apply.

---

## Specific Findings on the Flagged Candidate (Write ×4, lines 125–137)

**Flag origin:** Heuristic flagged runs of ≥4 same-tool calls across distinct targets.

**Assessment:** This is a **false positive** in the delegation-candidate heuristic. The criterion "parallelizable across independent files/subtasks" does not apply here. The orchestrator correctly recognized that:

1. The plugin files form a coherent unit, not independent subtasks.
2. Integration work (marketplace, settings edits) depends on all plugin files being written first.
3. The entire sequence belongs in a single session for semantic coherence and testability.

A subagent spawn would have added friction (returning a summary of 4 created files + hook integration details) without saving context, since the orchestrator needs to verify the hook integration and test it (line 161). **No delegation was needed.**

---

## Other Observations

### Work Quality
- Directory structure created before writes (line 119), preventing path errors.
- Hook syntax validated by running the hook in the working environment (line 161, `CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT` environment variable set).
- Permissions set (line 140: `chmod +x`).
- No retry loops or error recovery needed; indicates careful design before execution.

### Context Efficiency
- The Read/Bash exploration phase (lines 28–115) took ~16 tool calls to gather context.
- The Write/Edit/integration phase (lines 125–161) was tightly executed with no back-and-forth.
- Model was claude-sonnet-5 throughout (appropriate for the mix of exploration + structured file creation).

### No Red Flags
- No repeated reads of the same file (would indicate missing context or rework).
- No abandoned edits or reverted changes.
- Tool use pattern is monotonic: exploration → creation → integration → testing.

---

## Verdict Summary

| Question | Verdict | Confidence |
|----------|---------|------------|
| 1. Subagents when needed? | PASS | High |
| 2. Model choice per subagent? | N/A | — |
| 3. Task planning & grouping? | PASS | High |
| 4. Avoiding unnecessary reads? | PASS | High |
| 5. Context spillage to subagents? | N/A | — |
| 6. Following ORCHESTRATION.md? | PASS | High |
| 7. Compact subagent returns? | N/A | — |

**Overall: PASS.** The orchestrator correctly resisted delegating a multi-file write sequence that appears to exceed the ≤2-tool-call threshold, because the files are not independent and form one logical unit. Exploration was well-organized, tool calls were lean, and integration was tight. No delegation was warranted, and none was invoked.
