WTK’s intended workflow starts with an agent’s goal, instructions, tools, and limits. It tests a particular version in a particular environment, records the results, and requires approval before deployment or replacement.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
A person defines the question, acceptable sources, and limits on access. The agent gathers material and produces a report. Evaluation checks both the answer and its supporting evidence. An unsupported conclusion becomes a recorded failure and a possible improvement candidate, not an automatic change to the accepted agent.
This example explains the intended lifecycle; it is not a claim that an end-to-end deployment has passed validation. The sections below distinguish implementation from work still under test.
Related research questionsA package is the versioned definition of the work and its requirements. A runtime is the environment that executes it. For a team, the package also describes how responsibilities and work are divided.
The same roles can cooperate in different ways. These examples explain coordination choices, not a list of qualified WTK capabilities. The linked library records describe the underlying design requirements.
Pass work through ordered stages
Each stage uses the previous stage’s output. Use this when later work depends on an earlier result, such as gathering sources before drafting a report.
Governance check. Check each handoff before continuing. Missing evidence or a failed gate must not become accepted input to the next stage.
Pipeline pattern →Divide independent work, then combine it
Several agents work on separate parts of a question at the same time. The final step brings their results together. If agents instead attempt the same task and one result is selected, the library calls that scatter-gather.
Governance check. Bound worker count and budget. Define how missing, failed, or conflicting results affect the combined answer.
Fan-out / fan-in pattern →Examine a candidate before accepting it
A producer prepares a candidate and another role tests its reasoning or evidence. A report can return for revision rather than passing directly to release. This example draws on the existing produce–evaluate–revise pattern.
Governance check. Set review criteria and a revision limit. A separate role alone does not establish evaluator independence, and a positive review does not authorize publication.
Bounded evaluator loop →Delegate through coordinators and subteams
A lead assigns bounded areas of work to coordinators, which divide those assignments among their workers. For example, separate subteams could examine security and deployment requirements.
Governance check. Keep each delegation within its parent’s authority. Define who combines results and where unresolved issues escalate.
Hierarchical orchestration pattern →Adjust work as intermediate results arrive
Assignments or connections may change during a run as useful results or new gaps appear. This is a broader illustrative family, not a single WTK implementation. Governed recursion describes the narrower case of requesting bounded subtasks as work unfolds.
Governance check. Specify which changes are preauthorized, who approves other changes, and the limits on spawning, access, cost, and runtime. Reassess which previous evaluation results still apply.
Related: governed recursion →Patterns can combine. A research team might gather sources in parallel, draft a report sequentially, and return it through a bounded review loop. The work arrangement does not itself grant access, spending authority, or permission to release the result.
The WTK catalog model is more than a list of finished agents. It connects packages to reusable contracts and governed components so their structure can remain portable, inspectable, and reconstructable.
Identity · purpose · topology · component references · authority · provenance
The catalog supports discovery and reuse. The package remains source truth, while catalog presence never grants qualification or endorsement.
Frame the work, assemble its requirements, evaluate a version in its environment, and use the results to propose changes. The detailed stages below retain their individual checks and current evidence limits.
A direct interaction, reusable agent, recurring package, agent team, or one bounded clarification.
Goal or bounded sessionRecord its goal, instructions, inputs, outputs, tools, team roles, permissions, and required tests.
Governed packageBuild and run it, retain action records and supporting evidence, check required rules and goal completion, then state what these tests establish.
Target-scoped qualificationOutcomes and findings become attributed repair or frozen refinement candidates while the accepted version remains recoverable.
Qualified candidate or retained incumbentSelect a stage to see its artifact, governing decision, fail-closed behavior, present implementation basis, and question still under test.
The intake stage turns an incomplete idea—or an existing agent—into a responsibility, boundaries, acceptance criteria, and a proposed package shape.
Governed goal and authority record
Human confirmation
Missing authority, boundaries, or success criteria blocks intake.
Self-improvement may be automated. Self-authorization should not be.
A human reviews the retained evidence and authorizes whether a qualified candidate may replace the incumbent.
A separate promotion authority may approve bounded changes under human-defined policy when required evidence, risk limits, and rollback conditions are satisfied.
Uncertainty, increased consequence, material drift, policy change, or failed evidence stops unattended promotion.
A package can compile to a supported target when its adapter preserves the required contract semantics or explicitly identifies what is weakened, unavailable, or must be reauthored. Each execution environment needs evidence supporting its own qualification decision. Prior results apply only where their tested conditions remain relevant.
A future catalog entry must carry the governed package, authenticated publisher, custody chain, target-specific qualification, operational limits, and update or revocation state together. WTK is validating that complete publication contract before opening package installation.
