Appearance
Prompt complexity is a 7-rung ladder with a hard line between Level 3 (single-agent) and Level 4 (multi-agent) — pick the lowest rung that does the job reliably, not the cheapest that almost works.
Guide
How to Calibrate Prompt Complexity
The ladder
Seven rungs. One hard line in the middle.
L1
High-level intent
Single instruction, no structure. "Fix the typo in the README."
single-agent
L2
Workflow
Multi-step, linear. Check → identify → fix → commit.
single-agent
L3
Control flow
Branching, conditionals, loops. for each file in docs/ …
single-agent
L4
Delegation
Orchestrator routes to sub-agents. Multi-agent begins here.
multi-agent
L5
Higher-order
Prompts generate prompts — Phase Gate with Artifact Extraction.
multi-agent
L6
Template meta-prompt
Runtime {{VAR}} injection across many agents.
multi-agent
L7
Self-improving
Agent rewrites its own prompt from observed performance. Rare.
multi-agent
Each rung is a superset of the one below — and a multiple of the cost. The line between L3 and L4 is where design requirements change qualitatively, not just quantitatively.
The L3 → L4 inflection
Crossing to multi-agent is a one-way door.
Levels 1–3
One agent. One output. One invocation.
- A single Command carries the whole task
- Context and attention live in one place
- Debuggable by reading one transcript
- No handoff discipline required
Cheap to author. Ceiling: what one agent can hold in context and attention.
Levels 4–7
Orchestrator + sub-agents. New machinery.
- Agent Delegation Hierarchy to route work
- Per-agent skill composition
- Subprocess handoff discipline
- Domain Locking to keep multi-agent safe
Expensive to author. Only worth it when a single agent can't carry the load.
Don't cross the line because L4 feels sophisticated — cross it because L3 demonstrably fails.
How to pick a level
Lowest rung that does the job reliably — not at all.
Simple one-shot task?no structure, no branching
→
Level 1–2
·
Inline prompt in a Command
Recurring task with known steps?same shape every time
→
Level 3–4
·
Command template
Multi-phase SDLC work?plan → build → test → review
→
Level 5
·
Phase Gate with Artifact Extraction, chained in an ADW
Cross-team agentic system?many agents, shared structure
→
Level 6
·
Delegation Hierarchy + Metaprompt Variable Injection
Evolving long-lived agent?gets better over time
→
Level 7 (approx)
·
Level 6 + Mental Model updates
The rule is reliability, not capability. If L2 can do it but fails one time in ten, you're at L3.
Both directions cost real money
Under-engineering fails silently. Over-engineering burns tokens and hides bugs.
Too low for the taskunreliable output
L1 used for →
"Refactor the auth module and update all callers."
Misses callers, mangles edge cases, no phasing. Ships broken because the prompt had no room to branch or verify.
Too high for the tasktokens burned, bugs hidden
L5 used for →
"Fix the typo in README."
Three agents, an artifact handoff, a meta-prompt. 20× the cost, and a bug in the orchestrator now hides the trivial edit.
Most ADWs sit at L4–5. The Code Factory's /planning-products pipeline is L5 — a prompt that generates other prompts.
Where to go next
Three neighbor guides — one per altitude.
Any level
how-to-prompt
Writing a single-level prompt well — structure, specificity, failure modes at one rung.
L1–L7
Mid ladder
how-to-metaprompt
The mechanics of L5–L6 — artifact extraction, phase gates, variable injection.
L5–L6
Upper ladder
how-to-build-metaagents
Multi-agent architecture for L4 and beyond — delegation, skill composition, domain locking.
L4+
This guide tells you which rung. Those three tell you how to build well at that rung.
The discipline
Pick the lowest rung that does the job reliably — not the lowest that almost works, not the highest that feels impressive.
Under-engineer and you ship unreliability. Over-engineer and you burn tokens while hiding bugs behind orchestration. Calibration is the entire craft — the ladder is just the instrument.