Supervisor and handoff patterns

Overview

• A supervisor coordinates specialized workers and often combines their outputs.
• A handoff transfers responsibility for a conversation or task to another specialist.
• Coordination and transfer are different: the supervisor may retain ownership, while a handoff changes the active owner.

Why this matters

Different domains may need distinct context, tools, or escalation rules.

An everyday example

A case manager collects specialist reports; a receptionist transfers a caller to the claims department.

A technical example

A support supervisor asks policy and claim workers for bounded reports; a complaint handoff moves the conversation to staff.

How it works

1. Identify domain
2. Send minimal scoped input
3. Worker performs allowed task
4. Return typed result or transfer ownership
5. Validate combined outcome.

Architecture and flow

Supervisor → specialists → supervisor synthesis; Current owner → handoff contract → new owner.

The insurance assistant example

A renewal specialist should not automatically inherit a claim specialist's write permissions.

When to use it

Clear domain boundaries, separate team ownership, or distinct tool scopes.

When to avoid it

Avoid handoffs between nearly identical prompts or an unbounded supervisor that repeatedly delegates without progress.

Interview answer

“A supervisor coordinates specialists; a handoff transfers ownership. Both need explicit context, permissions, completion, and escalation contracts.”

Benefits, trade-offs, and production considerations

Propagate trace/run IDs, not unrestricted histories. Define who answers the user, who may act, and how timeouts or partial results are reported.