# T2 — Workflow tool as orchestration substrate (CC-27 GATE)

**Status:** Gate evidence + measurement design + recommendation. The adopt/don't-adopt
verdict for CC-27 is **operator-gated** (mirrors S3/S6/S7).
**Date:** 2026-06-18 (S8)
**Resolves:** decision-matrix §W1 / **CC-27** ("does Voyage adopt the Workflow tool as its
execution substrate, or stay prose-orchestrated?") + Empirical test **T2**.
**Inputs:** `docs/cc-upgrade-2.1.181-decision-matrix.md` §W1 / CC-27, `commands/trekreview.md`
(Phases 5–6, the prototype target), `docs/T1-cc26-delegated-orchestration.md` §4 (the S7
proliferation-classifier handoff), the Workflow-tool reference (CC 2.1.154+).
**Method (this session, operator-chosen):** staged — cheap live feasibility probe + this design
doc; the expensive head-to-head bake-off is **specified but NOT run** (see §5), gated on the
recommendation below. Same shape as S7.

---

## 1. The question the gate actually decides

CC-27: Voyage **hand-rolls** its swarm / wave / pipeline orchestration in command prose — the main
session reads a `/trek*` command, interprets its phase prose, and spawns agents via the Agent tool
itself. The Workflow tool (2.1.154+) is a native primitive for exactly this: a JS-scripted
orchestrator with `parallel()` / `pipeline()` / `agent({schema})`, background execution, budget
control, and resume/journaling.

The decision is framed as the **biggest identity choice**: adopt Workflow as Voyage's execution
substrate, or stay prose-orchestrated for portability and fine-grained control? But that framing is
a trap — see §2.

## 2. Reframing: "substrate swap" is a false binary; the axis is selective hybrid

The decision-relevant axis is **not** "all-Workflow vs all-prose." It is **"does wrapping a
fan-out→synthesize *core* in a Workflow call earn its keep, against the portability / opt-in /
in-transcript-visibility costs?"** — measured per core, not per pipeline.

Why the binary is false, using `/trekreview` (the named prototype) as the worked example:

- A `/trek*` command is **~80% non-orchestration glue** and **~20% agent fan-out.** trekreview's
  450 lines are: mode parsing (Phase 1), brief validation (Phase 2), SHA-range discovery (Phase 3),
  a deterministic path-pattern triage classifier (Phase 4), the strict validator + repair-in-place
  + stats JSONL + HTML annotation (Phase 8), and validate-only mode (Phase 8.5). The Workflow tool
  addresses **none** of that — it orchestrates *agents*, not bash calls, file writes, validators,
  and operator-facing HTML.
- The part Workflow actually replaces is **Phase 5 (parallel reviewers) + Phase 6 (coordinator
  synthesis)** — the clean fan-out→barrier→synthesize core. That is the 20%.
- So "adopt Workflow as substrate" can only ever mean **embed a Workflow call for the core, keep
  prose for the glue** — i.e. a *hybrid*, not a substrate swap. The honest question is therefore
  scoped: is the hybrid worth it for *this core*?

This mirrors the S7 reframing of CC-26 ("wall-time is not the gate metric; Δ main-context tokens
is"). For CC-27 the reframe is: **the gate metric is output-fidelity-preserving control/cost on a
single clean-barrier core, not a wholesale substrate identity.**

The trekreview core, for reference (the shape that gets ported):

```
Phase 5: [ brief-conformance-reviewer  ∥  code-correctness-reviewer ]   parallel fan-out
   ↓ merge findings arrays
Phase 6: review-coordinator  (dedup → HubSpot Judge → Cloudflare reasonableness → verdict)
   ↓
Phase 7: write review.md     ← stays prose (file I/O, atomic write, frontmatter rules)
```

## 3. Feasibility probe (RUN — 2026-06-18, CC 2.1.181, interactive session)

**Goal:** isolate the *mechanism + semantics* (does the fan-out→synthesize shape execute and return
to main? do structured schemas remove the JSON-parse fragility? does the S7 proliferation classifier
bite a Workflow fan-out? is the tool even invocable here?) from the *workload* (real reviewers on a
real diff — deferred to §5). A minimal trekreview-shaped Workflow: `parallel([reviewerA, reviewerB])`
with a findings schema → `agent(coordinator)` with a verdict schema, run on a one-line synthetic
input, trivial agents, no file reads.

**Verbatim result (Workflow return value, surfaced to main via task-notification):**

```json
{
  "reviewers_returned": 2,
  "merged_findings_count": 2,
  "sample_findings": [
    {"file":"foo.js","line":10,"rule_key":"SC_UNTRACED","severity":"MAJOR"},
    {"file":"foo.js","line":10,"rule_key":"ERR_UNGUARDED_PARSE","severity":"MAJOR"}
  ],
  "verdict": {"verdict":"BLOCK","deduped_count":2,
    "note":"Two distinct findings at foo.js:10 — rule_keys differ, so the dedup key
            (file,line,rule_key) keeps both. … verdict BLOCK on the conservative
            interpretation that one or more MAJOR findings remain unresolved."}
}
```
_Usage: 3 agents · 85 461 tokens · 13.8 s wall._

**Findings (measured):**

| # | Finding | Evidence | Decision impact |
|---|---------|----------|-----------------|
| F0 | **The Workflow tool is invocable here without a hard opt-in block.** | Launch returned a task ID; the operator's STATE directive (S8 = "reimplement the trekreview swarm as one Workflow") satisfied the opt-in gate. | The opt-in/billing gate is real but a command/operator directive **can** satisfy it. The general UX question (does every `/trekreview` invocation cleanly count as opt-in?) is unresolved — §4. |
| F1 | **The fan-out→barrier→synthesize core executes end-to-end.** Both parallel reviewers returned; the synthesizer ran on the merged result. | `reviewers_returned: 2`; the coordinator produced a verdict over both. | trekreview Phase 5→6 ports **natively** to `parallel()` → `agent()`. The shape is a 1:1 fit. |
| F2 | **Structured-output schemas remove the JSON-parse fragility.** Findings returned as typed, validated objects — no "collect trailing JSON block / `JSON.parse` / re-ask on error" dance. | `sample_findings` are schema-shaped `{file,line,rule_key,severity}`; no parse step in the script. | **The single most concrete win.** Directly retires the fragile contract at `commands/trekreview.md:202–204`. Validation+retry happens at the tool layer. |
| F3 | **The finished artifact returns to main as structured JSON.** | The notification `<result>` carried the full return object; main received the digest, not a transcript to re-parse. | Main gets a clean handoff — but only the *final* object (see F4-control). |
| F4 | **A small purposeful fan-out did NOT trip the S7 proliferation classifier.** | 2-way fan-out + 1 synthesizer ran with zero denials; contrast S7's *purposeless recursive* chain, which the auto-mode classifier denied at L2→L3. | For trekreview specifically (2–3 agents) the classifier risk is **low**. The classifier's behavior at *large* Workflow fan-out (trekplan's 6–10-agent swarm) under `auto`/`bypass` remains **unverified** — same caveat shape as S7. |

> Verifiseringsplikt: F0–F4 are *measured* from the probe above. The probe used trivial agents and a
> small (2-way) purposeful fan-out in an interactive session. It does **not** establish (a) classifier
> behavior for a large fan-out under auto/bypass, (b) output fidelity against a *real* diff, or (c)
> token cost at production context size — all deferred to §5. What it establishes is mechanism,
> schema-robustness, return-to-main, and small-scale classifier tolerance.

## 4. Decision-relevant analysis — the honest ledger

### 4.1 What the Workflow substrate demonstrably wins (measured / structural)

1. **Schema-validated reviewer contracts (F2)** — the one concrete, measured win. trekreview today
   "collects each reviewer's trailing JSON block … on parse error, ask the agent to re-emit"
   (`trekreview.md:202–204`). `agent({schema})` makes that a tool-layer guarantee. *This win is
   capturable even without the Workflow tool — see §6.*
2. **Deterministic control flow (F1/F3)** — fan-out, merge (`flatMap`), dedup-by-triplet can be
   plain JS, not prose the model re-interprets each run. The Phase-6 dedup pass (`(file,line,
   rule_key)`) is pure data manipulation that does not need an agent at all in a Workflow port;
   only the *judgment* passes (HubSpot Judge, Cloudflare reasonableness) stay agent calls.
3. **Native pipelining / budget control** — `pipeline()` (no-barrier streaming) and `budget.*`
   exist. Minor for trekreview's single barrier; potentially relevant for trekplan's longer chain.

### 4.2 What the Workflow substrate costs (measured / structural)

1. **Loss of in-transcript operator visibility (F3, structural).** Workflow runs in the background;
   intermediate reviewer findings appear in `/workflows`, not the main conversation. trekreview is
   an **adversarial-review tool whose verdict the operator gates** — in-line visibility of each
   finding as it lands, and the ability to interrupt mid-swarm, is a real property prose has and
   Workflow trades away. (The final `review.md` artifact is still operator-gated, so this is a
   degradation of *mid-flow* visibility, not of the gate itself.)
2. **Portability floor.** Workflow is CC **2.1.154+**. Voyage ships as a plugin; making a command
   require the Workflow tool raises the consumer's CC floor. Prose commands run on any recent CC.
3. **Opt-in / billing semantics (F0).** Invocable here via the operator directive, but the Workflow
   tool is explicitly gated on opt-in ("ONLY when the user has explicitly opted into multi-agent
   orchestration"). A `/trekreview` invocation would have to *count as* that opt-in cleanly, or the
   UX gains a second gate. Unresolved.
4. **Per-agent context floor is real but NOT a Workflow-specific tax.** 85k tokens for 3 trivial
   agents (~28k/agent) is the fresh-context floor each spawned agent pays — but **prose
   orchestration spawns the same 3 agents** (2 reviewers + coordinator) and pays the same floor.
   So token cost is **roughly a wash** for equal agent count; it is *not* a strong differentiator
   either way. (This corrects the instinct to count it as a Workflow con.)
5. **Loss of ad-hoc mid-flow model judgment.** Prose lets main *read* a malformed reviewer output
   and decide to re-ask; a Workflow handles that via schema-retry (better for JSON) but cannot make
   the unscripted judgment calls a prose-driven main session can.

### 4.3 The classifier handoff from S7 (resolved-partial)

S7's open item — "classifier behavior for a *purposeful* swarm under auto/bypass is unverified" —
is **partially closed**: a small purposeful Workflow fan-out is tolerated (F4). It remains open for
*large* fan-out (≥6 agents) under auto/bypass, which is trekplan's shape, not trekreview's. trekreview's
2–3-agent core is below the risk threshold; the bake-off (§5) must still measure it for the larger swarms.

## 5. Measurement design — the full prose-vs-Workflow bake-off (specified, ready to run)

If the operator greenlights a scoped port (§7), this resolves the *fidelity/control/cost* half of
CC-27. **Not run** in S8.

**Arms (same brief, same delivered diff, same model/effort; Phases 1–4 + 7–8 stay prose in both):**
- **Arm A — prose (baseline):** current `/trekreview` Phase 5–6 — main spawns the two reviewers in
  parallel, collects + parses their JSON, spawns `review-coordinator`.
- **Arm B — Workflow:** Phase 5–6 reimplemented as one Workflow —
  `parallel([conformance, correctness])` with a findings schema → `agent(coordinator)` with a
  verdict schema; the dedup-by-triplet pass moved to plain JS; main receives the `review.md` body.

**Fixed inputs:** one representative delivered project (reuse an existing `.claude/projects/*/` with
a real diff + brief of medium size), `model: opus` / default effort, `--profile balanced`.

**Metrics (per arm, ≥3 runs for medians — q3 harness pattern for usage extraction):**

| Metric | Source | Role |
|--------|--------|------|
| **Output fidelity** — same verdict + equivalent finding set (IDs, severities, rule_keys) | diff the two `review.md` | **PRIMARY** — a substrate that changes the verdict/findings fails the gate |
| JSON-robustness — parse-error/re-ask events (Arm A) vs schema-retries (Arm B) | transcript/script logs | **the concrete win** — quantifies the fragility removed (F2) |
| Control / operator visibility | qualitative: intermediate findings in-transcript? interruptible mid-swarm? | **gate guard** — review is operator-gated (§4.2.1) |
| Classifier interference | count of denied/missing spawns (Arm B, repeat under `auto`/`bypass`) | feasibility guard (F4 / S7) |
| Total token cost (main + descendants) | summed stream-json `usage` | secondary — expected ≈ wash (§4.2.4) |
| Wall-time to `review.md` | timestamps | secondary |

**Decision thresholds (CC-27 verdict for *this core*):**
- **POSITIVE (adopt scoped hybrid):** output fidelity ≡ Arm A (same verdict; finding set within
  tolerance) **AND** JSON-robustness strictly better **AND** zero classifier interference **AND**
  token cost within +15% **AND** operator visibility judged acceptable (the `review.md` gate
  survives).
- **NEGATIVE (keep prose):** verdict/findings diverge, **OR** any classifier interference drops a
  reviewer, **OR** token cost > +30%, **OR** loss of mid-flow visibility judged unacceptable.
- **INCONCLUSIVE:** in-between → fall back to §6 (schema contract in prose, no Workflow) and re-measure.

**Harness note:** extend the `scripts/q3-cache-prefix-experiment.mjs` pattern (stream-json `usage`
extraction, median, threshold→verdict, always-write result file). The fidelity diff (review.md ↔
review.md) is new; the usage scaffold is reused.

## 6. Cheaper first step (preferred over the full bake-off) — schema contract without Workflow

The single concrete win (F2) is **capturable without adopting the Workflow tool at all.** The
reviewer-output fragility lives in prose ("collect trailing JSON block; on parse error, ask the
agent to re-emit"). The narrowest, zero-dependency fix is to **codify the reviewer findings JSON as
a validated schema contract in prose Phase 5** — main validates each reviewer's JSON against a
findings JSON-schema (Voyage already has `lib/validators/` + `lib/util/frontmatter.mjs` parsers) and
re-asks on schema failure, not just on parse failure.

This captures the robustness win with **no portability floor, no opt-in gate, no loss of
in-transcript visibility** — the substrate stays prose. It is the S8 analog of S7 §6's "narrow
synthesis-agent PoC preferred over the full bake-off": isolate the largest win with the smallest
blast radius. **Recommended as the first thing to ship if the operator wants the win without the
substrate commitment.**

## 7. CC-27 recommendation (operator gates the verdict)

**Three tiers, in increasing commitment:**

1. **Ship regardless (cheapest, no Workflow):** codify reviewer-output JSON as a schema-validated
   contract in prose Phase 5 (§6). Captures the one measured win (F2 robustness) with zero new
   dependency, zero opt-in friction, zero visibility loss. Low risk, high value.
2. **Scoped hybrid — a measured YES candidate, gated on the §5 bake-off:** port trekreview Phase 5–6
   to a Workflow **if** the bake-off shows fidelity-equivalent output + acceptable control/cost.
   trekreview's clean-barrier core is the **best-case first port**; trekplan's swarm is a later,
   classifier-sensitive candidate (its larger fan-out under auto/bypass is the unverified risk).
3. **Wholesale substrate swap — NOT recommended.** Portability floor (2.1.154+), opt-in/billing UX
   on every invocation, 80%-of-each-command is non-orchestration glue Workflow does not touch, and
   loss of mid-flow operator visibility for tools whose verdict the operator gates. The identity
   framing ("adopt Workflow as substrate") over-claims what the primitive can replace.

**Net:** CC-27 stays **EVALUATE**, resolving toward **selective hybrid, not substrate swap** — a
slightly more YES-leaning posture than S7's CC-26, because here both feasibility (F1) *and* a
concrete win (F2) are confirmed, where CC-26's only upside (main-context relief) was speculative and
counterweighted. The wholesale-substrate option is declined. The first action, if the operator wants
movement, is the §6 prose schema contract; the first Workflow port, if pursued, is trekreview
Phase 5–6 via the §5 bake-off. CC-26 (delegated orchestration, S7) and CC-27 are now both resolved
to "narrow/selective, operator-gated, not wholesale."

## 8. Open items

1. **Output fidelity unmeasured** — the probe used a synthetic input; a real-diff prose-vs-Workflow
   `review.md` comparison (§5 PRIMARY metric) is designed but unrun.
2. **Classifier behavior at large fan-out under auto/bypass unverified** (F4) — trekreview's 2–3
   agents are below threshold; trekplan's 6–10-agent swarm is not, and must be measured before any
   Workflow port reaches a headless/auto path. Inherits directly from S7 §4.
3. **Opt-in UX for command-invoked Workflows unresolved** (F0) — whether a bare `/trekreview`
   invocation cleanly satisfies the Workflow opt-in gate for an end user (not just via an operator
   STATE directive) needs a real end-user test.
4. **§6 schema contract and §5 bake-off are both designed but unbuilt** — ready to run if CC-27 is
   greenlit toward the schema contract (tier 1) and/or the scoped port (tier 2).