team-assemble

name	team-assemble
description	Analyze tasks and dynamically assemble expert agent teams using Claude Code's TeamCreate API. Scouts your codebase, designs optimal agents, and executes with validation.
allowed-tools	["Agent","Bash","Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","AskUserQuestion","TaskCreate","TaskUpdate","TaskList","TaskGet","TeamCreate","TeamDelete","SendMessage"]
version	1.0.0

Team Assemble

Analyze a task, dynamically design the right expert agents, and orchestrate them as a team using Claude Code's agent teams feature.

Prerequisites

Agent teams must be enabled. See references/enable-agent-teams.md for setup instructions.

When to Use

• Complex tasks that decompose into 2+ independent subtasks
• Work where role separation is clear (e.g., research + implementation + validation)
• Tasks that benefit from parallel execution

Do NOT use for: single-file edits, simple questions, purely sequential work

---

Core Principles

• Model 3-tier — choose by role purpose (details: references/agents.md)
  • opus — strategy/judgment (scouts, complex execution)
  • sonnet — standard execution/validation (worker, qa, support)
  • haiku — exploration/writing (researcher, editor)
• No fixed catalog — agents are designed dynamically per task
• Example bank — references/agents.md provides reference examples (not mandatory)

---

Workflow

Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3 → Phase 4 → Phase 5 → Phase 6
Task       Codebase   Integrate  Execute   Validate   Complete
Analysis   Scouts     & Confirm                       & Cleanup
                                           ↕ FAIL → support fix (max 3x)

---

Phase 1: Task Analysis

Analyze the user's request and identify relevant areas of the codebase:

1. Examine project structure, CLAUDE.md files, and README files
2. Identify which parts of the codebase are relevant to the task
3. Determine if codebase scouting (Phase 2) would help, or if the task is straightforward enough to skip to Phase 3

Get user approval via AskUserQuestion:

I've analyzed your task and identified the following areas of interest:

- [x] src/auth/ — Authentication module (needs refactoring)
- [x] tests/auth/ — Corresponding tests
- [ ] src/api/ — Not directly affected

I'll scout these areas to design an optimal team.

Options: "Looks good, proceed" / "I'd like to adjust the scope"

For straightforward tasks that don't need codebase exploration, skip Phase 2 and go directly to Phase 3 — design the team yourself using references/agents.md as a guide.

---

Phase 2: Codebase Scouts (Parallel)

Launch scout agents in parallel to explore relevant areas of the codebase.

Scout Configuration

• Model: opus
• subagent_type: general-purpose (constrained to read-only via prompt)
• Parallel: launch multiple scouts simultaneously when exploring different areas

Scout Mission

Each scout reads the relevant codebase area and proposes agents for the task:

1. Read key files (CLAUDE.md, README.md, source code, configs)
2. Analyze the intersection between the task and the codebase area
3. Propose agents needed (name, role, tasks, reference files)
4. Reference references/agents.md for examples, but freely design new agents

Prompt template: references/prompt-templates.md § Codebase Scout

Scout Output Format

## Scout Report: {area}

### Current State
- {file structure summary}
- {relevance to the task}

### Proposed Agents
| Agent | Role | Tasks | Reference Files |
|-------|------|-------|-----------------|
| {name} | {role} | {task} | {files} |

### Notes
- {area-specific constraints or patterns to follow}

---

Phase 3: Integrate & Confirm Team

Merge scout reports into a final team composition:

1. Deduplicate — merge similar agent proposals from different scouts
2. Gap analysis — check for missing roles
3. Add qa + support — validation/fix agents are always included
4. Dependency graph — design execution order between agents
5. Define acceptance criteria — measurable criteria for Phase 5 validation

Team Proposal

Get final approval via AskUserQuestion:

Proposed team: {team-name}

| # | Agent | Role | Tasks | Dependencies |
|---|-------|------|-------|--------------|
| 1 | architect | System design | Design new auth flow | - |
| 2 | implementer | Code changes | Implement the design | #1 |
| 3 | test-writer | Test coverage | Write tests for changes | #2 |
| 4 | qa | Validation | PASS/FAIL against acceptance criteria | #2, #3 |

Acceptance criteria:
- [ ] AC-1: {measurable criterion}
- [ ] AC-2: {measurable criterion}

Options: "Looks good, execute" / "I'd like to adjust roles"

If the user selects "adjust roles", ask what specifically to change. After 2+ revision requests, switch to free-text input.

---

Phase 4: Execution

Create Team & Distribute Tasks

TeamCreate(team_name: "{keyword}-team", description: "Task description")

team_name convention: core keyword + -team

Create TaskCreate entries for each agent, then set dependencies with TaskUpdate.

Launch Teammates

• Model: apply 3-tier based on role (references/agents.md)
• subagent_type: "general-purpose"
• mode: "bypassPermissions"
• Parallel: launch agents without blockedBy dependencies in a single message
• Sequential: inject preceding agent results into the next agent's prompt

Teammate Prompt Requirements

1. Context — project background and how this task fits the whole
2. Specific goal — exactly what to achieve
3. Reference files — file paths identified by scouts
4. Constraints — what NOT to do, scope limits
5. Output format — expected deliverable format
6. Team info — team_name, task ID

Detailed prompt structure: references/prompt-templates.md

---

Phase 5: Validation

qa (sonnet) evaluates each acceptance criterion from Phase 3.

Validation Process

Agent(name: "qa", model: "sonnet", prompt: """
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] AC-1: {criterion}

## Validation Target
{Phase 4 execution results}

Evaluate each criterion with evidence-based PASS/FAIL judgment.
No PASS without evidence.

## Output Format
| # | Criterion | Verdict | Evidence |
Overall: PASS / FAIL
Include fix suggestions for any FAIL items.
""")

FAIL Handling

support (sonnet) fixes only FAIL items → qa re-validates:

• Max 3 rounds of verify/fix loop
• If the same error repeats 3 times, stop immediately
• After 3 rounds, halt the pipeline and report to user:

## Validation Failed — Manual Intervention Needed

### Repeated Failures
- AC-{N}: {criterion} — {failure reason}

### Attempted Fixes
1. {attempt 1}  2. {attempt 2}  3. {attempt 3}

### Recommended Action
{what needs to be done manually}

---

Phase 6: Complete & Cleanup

Result Report

## Team Results: {team-name}

### Acceptance Criteria
- [x] AC-1: {criterion} — PASS

### Per-Agent Results
- {agent}: {result summary}

### Deliverables
- {file paths or outputs}

### Validation History
- Validated {N} times, {M} fixes applied

Team Cleanup

SendMessage(type: "shutdown_request", recipient: "{name}", content: "Work complete")
TeamDelete()

---

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Correct Approach
Creating team without user approval	Get AskUserQuestion approval in Phase 1 + Phase 3
Executing without acceptance criteria	Always define criteria in Phase 3
Running scouts for simple tasks	Skip Phase 2 for straightforward work
Skipping validation	Always run Phase 5 after execution
Ignoring model tiers	Use opus/sonnet/haiku based on role purpose
Only picking from fixed catalog	Scouts design freely; examples are reference only
Forgetting TeamDelete	Always shutdown_request → TeamDelete
Infinite FAIL loop	Max 3 verify/fix rounds, then report to user

Additional Resources

• references/agents.md — Agent example bank with model tier guide
• references/prompt-templates.md — Scout + execution + QA prompt templates
• references/examples.md — Worked examples: feature dev, refactoring, research
• references/enable-agent-teams.md — How to enable agent teams in Claude Code