◇ Could this help me?
Yes. The underlying move is sound engineering: control flow, loops, and conditionals are things a script does reliably and deterministically, while asking a model to act as the coordinator makes every branch a judgment call and pays tokens for it, so pulling the orchestration into code is both cheaper and more predictable. Forcing structured output from sub-agents is the detail that makes chaining actually work, since a schema is what turns one agent's result into something the next step can consume without reinterpretation. The persistent run metadata matters more than it sounds, because a multi-agent run that leaves no trace is impossible to debug when it produces something wrong. General practice for the pattern, and note the video ends by promoting the creator's paid course, which is advertising rather than a necessary next step.
I want to orchestrate sub-agents with a script rather than having the main agent coordinate them. For the task below, design the workflow: identify the steps that should be separate sub-agents, decide which run in parallel and which must be sequential, and define the arguments the script should accept so I can control scope, such as how many items to process in one run. For every sub-agent, specify a structured output schema so its result can feed the next step without reinterpretation, and set an explicit cap on loop iterations so nothing runs away. Then explain what the run should record for auditing, so I can debug a bad result afterwards rather than rerunning blind.