Week 3 — Sequential vs hierarchical

Course: CrewAI
Who this is for: Engineers who have chosen “list of jobs” vs “manager assigns work.”

CrewAI’s Process flag is the whole week: sequential (tickets in order) vs hierarchical (a manager LLM assigns). That is a staffing choice. It is not a board meeting and it is not a consensus algorithm.

This venv has no LangChain. Sketch both process types. Do not run a voting/CEO theatre that never executes.

---

🎯 What you will be able to do

• Point at Process.sequential vs Process.hierarchical on a tiny CloudWave crew
• Say who owns the final ticket in each mode
• Skip fake voting unless you can actually run it
• Know when a manager LLM is extra latency for one job

Think of it like… Makefile vs a tech-lead standup.

Sequential = the Makefile order. Hierarchical = a lead reads the tickets and pokes people. Consensus-by-vote is a third thing this library does not prove for you in a concept demo.

Picture the two processes

SEQUENTIAL                         HIERARCHICAL
t1 researcher                      manager (LLM)
     │                                │
     ▼                         assigns / reviews
t2 writer                          /     \
     │                         t1 res   t2 writer
     ▼                                │
t3 qa                                 ▼
     │                           manager output
     ▼
   result

Sequential sketch

from crewai import Agent, Crew, Process, Task

researcher = Agent(role="researcher", goal="facts", backstory="extract", verbose=False)
writer = Agent(role="writer", goal="draft", backstory="from facts only", verbose=False)

t1 = Task(description="List three churn reasons from tickets.", expected_output="bullet list", agent=researcher)
t2 = Task(description="Write a 5-line summary.", expected_output="five lines", agent=writer, context=[t1])

seq = Crew(
    agents=[researcher, writer],
    tasks=[t1, t2],
    process=Process.sequential,
)
assert seq.process == Process.sequential
assert t2.context == [t1]
# order is the task list. no manager LLM.

Hierarchical sketch

Process.hierarchical expects a manager (in 0.80, a manager_llm or a manager agent — see the pin’s constructor). You can construct the crew and assert the process without kickoff().

hier = Crew(
    agents=[researcher, writer],
    tasks=[t1, t2],
    process=Process.hierarchical,
    # manager_llm=...  # required to *run*; omit rather than pass a LangChain fake
)
assert hier.process == Process.hierarchical

Who owns the final string? The manager’s last message, not t2’s, if the manager rewrites. That is extra tokens and a second chance to drop risks. Sequential is the default until you can say what the manager decides that context= does not.

Watch out — voting theatre

“Each specialist votes, CEO aggregates, re-vote on objections” is a play. It does not run in this concept demo, it is not Process, and it will not show up in a trace you can test. If you need a human decision, that is LangGraph week 4’s interrupt, not a CrewAI ballot.

Ship / don’t ship

Ship sequential when the dependency graph is already the order. Ship hierarchical only when you can name the manager’s job (pick an owner, not rewrite the artifact). Don’t ship a six-role design-review panel that never kickoff()s.

✍️ Exercise

Exercises.

🤔 Reflection

1. In sequential mode, who is blamed if risks go missing — writer or QA?
2. What does the manager add that context=[t1] did not already pass?
3. Where would you put a human instead of a CEO agent?

🔗 Next week

The actual “done when”: one worker vs a crew on quality, latency, and call count.