4.4K
Orchestration & Control validated in production

Deterministic Zero-LLM Orchestration

By Alex Chernysh (@chernistry)
Add to Pack
or

Saved locally in this browser for now.

Cite This Pattern
APA
Alex Chernysh (@chernistry) (2026). Deterministic Zero-LLM Orchestration. In *Awesome Agentic Patterns*. Retrieved April 24, 2026, from https://agentic-patterns.com/patterns/deterministic-zero-llm-orchestration
BibTeX
@misc{agentic_patterns_deterministic-zero-llm-orchestration,
  title = {Deterministic Zero-LLM Orchestration},
  author = {Alex Chernysh (@chernistry)},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://agentic-patterns.com/patterns/deterministic-zero-llm-orchestration}},
  note = {Awesome Agentic Patterns}
}
01

Problem

Multi-agent coding systems typically spend LLM tokens on coordination — deciding which agent works on what, routing tasks, merging results. This coordination overhead adds cost, latency, and non-determinism where none is needed.

02

Solution

Keep the orchestrator as deterministic Python code that spends zero LLM tokens on coordination. The LLM budget goes entirely to the agents doing actual work.

Goal → Decompose (deterministic) → Assign to parallel agents → Verify (tests) → Commit

The orchestrator handles:

  • Task decomposition via rule-based planning
  • Agent assignment and parallel spawning (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI)
  • Result verification through test execution
  • Git operations (branching, merging, committing)

Agents handle:

  • Code generation
  • Problem solving
  • Implementation decisions
03

How to use it

# Single goal → parallel agents → verified commits
bernstein -g "Add JWT auth with refresh tokens, tests, and API docs"

# Headless for CI pipelines
bernstein --headless

# Self-evolution mode: propose and sandbox improvements
bernstein --evolve --budget 5.00

Key implementation choices:

  • No LLM router — task-to-agent mapping is code, not prompts
  • Test-driven verification — a janitor process runs tests after each agent completes
  • Git worktree isolation — each agent works in its own worktree, no conflicts
  • Circuit breaker — halt on test regression, no silent failures
04

Trade-offs

Pros:

  • Predictable coordination cost (zero LLM tokens)
  • Deterministic behavior — same goal produces same task breakdown
  • Faster iteration — no waiting for LLM to decide what to do next
  • Supports heterogeneous agents (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, Qwen)

Cons:

  • Rigid decomposition — can't handle ambiguous goals that need LLM judgment to split
  • Requires well-defined project structure for rule-based planning
  • Less adaptive than LLM-routed orchestration for novel task types
06

References