Prefer Fork Agents

Self-check: are you the fork?

Before applying any rule below, check your own role. If any of these are true, you ARE a fork-worker:

• A ‹fork-boilerplate› block appears in your prompt
• You were explicitly told "you are the fork, execute directly"
• Your session metadata shows fork-context-ref / attributionAgent: fork
• Attempting Agent(subagent_type:"fork", …) returns Fork is not available inside a forked worker

If you are the fork: the default-to-fork rule and the entire fan-out machinery in this skill do NOT apply to you. Execute the task directly with your existing tools (Read, Bash, Edit, Grep, etc.). Do NOT attempt to spawn further agents — neither fork nor named — because the runtime ‹fork-boilerplate› directive forbids any Agent-tool spawn from inside a fork, not just recursive forks. This rule overrides every "default-to-fork" sentence that follows.

If you are the parent (top-level session): the rules below apply normally.

This self-check exists because forks inherit the parent's active skills. Without it, a fork would read the "default to fork" mandate, attempt to spawn — and hit the no-recursion guard. The skill's own inheritance is the source of the failure; this block neutralizes it.

What a fork agent is

A fork agent is a Claude Code subagent that inherits the parent's full conversation state — system prompt, message history, active skills, tool definitions, CLAUDE.md, and the project's prompt cache. It runs with its own fresh 200K context window on top of that inherited state. The schema difference from a normal subagent is subagent_type: "fork" on the Agent tool call. Forks cannot spawn further forks (no recursion — a ‹fork-boilerplate› system instruction is injected that explicitly forbids it) and are mutually exclusive with coordinator mode.

Invocation

Fork. Set subagent_type: "fork" explicitly:

{
  "name": "Agent",
  "input": {
    "description": "Brief label, 3-5 words",
    "subagent_type": "fork",
    "prompt": "Directive: WHAT to do. Do not repeat context the fork already inherits — be terse and scope-focused. The fork has read everything we have read and discussed everything we have discussed."
  }
}

Named subagent (exception case). Include the named subagent_type:

{
  "name": "Agent",
  "input": {
    "description": "Brief label",
    "subagent_type": "Explore",
    "prompt": "Full briefing: goal, constraints, expected output format, anything the agent needs to know — it starts with ZERO conversation context."
  }
}

Important — verified in Claude Code v2.1.177: omitting subagent_type does NOT trigger fork mode; it falls back silently to general-purpose (a fresh agent with no inherited context). The trigger is the literal string "fork" in the subagent_type field.

Verification signatures of a real fork in the session JSONL at ~/.claude/projects/<project>/<session>/subagents/agent-<id>.jsonl:

1. First line is {"type":"fork-context-ref", "parentSessionId":..., "parentLastUuid":..., "contextLength":...} — this is the load-bearing signal that the fork inherited the parent's context.
2. First sidechain user turn (typically line 3) contains a ‹fork-boilerplate› block injecting the no-recursion directive and worker rules.
3. Fork-originated assistant turns carry "attributionAgent":"fork". Note that line 2 is the parent's carried-over Agent tool_use call and does NOT carry this field — that absence is structural, not a failure signal.

Fastest single check: if line 1's type is "fork-context-ref", it's a real fork. The other signatures only matter when debugging a suspected fallback.

If a fork dispatch errors (fork mode not enabled)

Fork mode needs CLAUDE_CODE_FORK_SUBAGENT=1 in ~/.claude/settings.json, read at startup. A plugin can't set it. If a fork dispatch errors with this unset, tell the user to run /Claude-Full-Context-Agent:doctor — it runs the bundled installer for their OS (sets the var, installs skills) — then restart Claude Code. One-time; later sessions already have it.

When to parallelize at all

The fork-vs-named decision is downstream of a more fundamental question: should you dispatch multiple agents in parallel at all? Resolve this FIRST.

Fan out (multiple agents in parallel) when:

• 3+ independent failures or tasks with genuinely different root causes
• Multiple subsystems to investigate or modify independently
• Each problem is understandable without context from the others
• No shared state or shared files between the workers

Do NOT fan out when:

• Tasks are related — solving one might solve others. Investigate sequentially first.
• You need full system state to understand the problem. A single agent with broad scope is better.
• Workers would interfere (editing the same files, racing on shared resources)
• Exploratory debugging where you do not yet know what is broken. Go serial until you have hypotheses.

If the answer is "do not parallelize", dispatch a single agent (still fork by default per the rule below). If the answer is "parallelize", proceed to the fork-vs-named decision below — AND consult the fork-fan-out skill for orchestration patterns (worktrees, reporting contracts, parent-merge sequence).

Decision rule

Default: fork. Choose a named subagent_type only when one of these applies:

1. Unbiased verdict required. Security audit, design critique, adversarial code review — cases where the parent's context would prejudice the result. Use a custom subagent or general-purpose with a fresh brief.

1. Lightweight read-only search. Use subagent_type: "Explore" (runs on Haiku) for "find all files matching X", "where is function Y called", or other simple codebase scans where inherited context provides no benefit but Haiku speed/cost does.

1. Plan-only mode. Use subagent_type: "Plan" for read-only architectural analysis that must not modify files.

1. Specialized custom subagent. A custom agent in ~/.claude/agents/ with a deliberately curated system prompt — e.g. a security auditor or test-engineer persona — that should NOT inherit the parent's framing.

If none of these four cases applies, dispatch a fork. If you cannot articulate which case applies, dispatch a fork. Silence around "why named" is itself the signal that fork is correct.

For cases 1 and 4: the named subagent receives ZERO conversation context. Brief it like a stateless worker — focused scope, explicit constraints, specific output format. Do NOT assume it inherits anything from the conversation. The principle is the inverse of fork prompting: write a complete, self-contained briefing.

Constraints

• Concurrency: 6-8 practical, ~10 scheduler-cap. The scheduler accepts roughly 10 simultaneous forks, but the planning-vs-execution gap grows beyond 5-6. At 7+ parallel tracks, retroactive auditing tends to replace actual orchestration. Soft cap at 6; sequentialize larger batches into waves. See fork-fan-out skill for the empirical basis.
• No recursion: a fork cannot spawn further forks. Forks see an injected directive preventing it. Plan fan-outs as flat, not nested. (For two-layer parallelism, see the Federation pattern in fork-fan-out.)
• Compaction inheritance: if the parent has auto-compacted before the fork, the fork inherits the compacted (lossy) state — not the original. Dispatch forks early in long sessions, ideally before 60% context utilization.
• Incompatible with coordinator mode and with claude --print (headless) mode.
• Cost scales with session length: each fork carries the full parent history. In long sessions, parallel forks can be expensive even with cache discounts. Worth it for wall-clock speedup, but budget accordingly.
• Filesystem isolation for edit fan-outs: when fanning out forks that will edit files, dispatch each with isolation: "worktree". Without it, parallel forks share the same working directory and risk overwriting each other's edits or producing silent merge conflicts. Read-only fan-outs (search, analysis, reporting) do not need worktree isolation. Project .gitignore should exclude .claude/worktrees/ — see fork-fan-out skill.

Post-dispatch verification

After a fan-out returns, run this ritual before considering the work done. Non-optional for fan-outs that include edits — skipping it produces silent regressions where individual forks succeeded but the combined state is broken.

1. Read each fork's summary. Understand what each one actually did, not just whether it reported success. Forks can hallucinate completion.

1. Diff for file overlap. If two forks edited the same file (or two worktrees touched the same path), integration is needed before merging. With isolation: "worktree" this surfaces as parallel branches that need a manual reconcile step.

1. Run the full build/test suite. Each fork verified its own slice. Only the integrated whole reveals whether the slices compose correctly.

1. Spot-check for systematic errors. Forks share the parent's biases and assumptions. If one fork made a wrong inference (e.g., misread an API contract), the others likely did too. Sample one or two outputs deeply rather than trusting all uniformly.

For single-fork dispatches, steps 1 and 3 still apply. Step 2 is moot, step 4 less critical. For multi-fork fan-outs, the fork-fan-out skill expands this ritual with registry tracking and merge-stage discipline.

Worked example

User asks: "Spawn an agent that researches the Superpowers project on GitHub."

Wrong move (improvising a named subagent):

Agent(description="research superpowers",
      subagent_type="researcher",
      prompt="Research Superpowers... [needs full briefing because zero context]")

Correct move (fork — the parent already knows what Superpowers is from this conversation):

Agent(description="GitHub research on Superpowers",
      subagent_type="fork",
      prompt="Research the obra/superpowers repo on GitHub. Return: feature list, recent release notes, comparison to the alternatives we already discussed.")

The fork-prompt is shorter precisely because the fork already inherits "the alternatives we already discussed". With a named subagent, that reference would have to be expanded into the prompt, doubling its length and risking summarization loss.

When this skill is most actionable

Right before you emit an Agent/Task tool call, ask the three questions in order:

1. Is this a parallelizable batch? Apply the "When to parallelize at all" criteria. If no, single dispatch. If yes, plan the fan-out before issuing calls — consult fork-fan-out for orchestration.

1. Per worker, does the task benefit from current conversation context?

• Yes → fork (set subagent_type: "fork" explicitly)
• No, and it's a cheap read-only search → subagent_type: "Explore"
• No, and it's a deliberately fresh second opinion → named subagent with full briefing per cases 1/4
• Otherwise → fork

1. If fanning out with edits: add isolation: "worktree" to each fork.

After dispatch returns, run the post-dispatch verification ritual.

Apply silently. Do not narrate the decision tree unless asked.