| name | Design data science agent systems |
| description | Design agent system prompts, parallel architectures, and methodological guardrails for data science decision-packs. Use when creating orchestrator, subagent, or parallel agent systems for analytical workflows. Covers anti-fabrication rules, epistemic humility, when to stop, conflict detection, uncertainty reporting, retry protocols, prompt design principles, and the decision-lab runtime mechanics. |
Designing Agent Systems for Data Science
This skill covers how to write agent .md files and parallel-agent YAML configs for decision-packs that do data science work, AND the methodology that makes the difference between agents that produce useful analysis and agents that produce confident garbage.
The principles here come from building and benchmarking the MMM (Marketing Mix Modeling) agent system. They should apply to most data science domains where agents explore analytical decisions, fit models, and make recommendations.
Part 1: Methodology
The Cardinal Rule: Never Fabricate
Agents must NEVER fabricate data, mock parameters, silently swallow errors, or substitute made-up values when code fails. This must appear in every agent prompt.
The forbidden pattern:
try:
n_missing = result.missing_count
except:
n_missing = 0
When code fails: read the error, investigate, fix, retry. If unfixable after max 10 attempts: report the error and STOP.
Only three acceptable outcomes:
- Code works → use the real value
- Code fails → fix it and retry
- Code fails and can't be fixed → report error and STOP
Never acceptable: code fails → substitute a made-up value and continue.
Every agent prompt — orchestrator, subagents, consolidator — must contain an explicit anti-fabrication section.
The Goal Is Understanding, Not a Fitted Model
A running model that fit something is not the goal. The goal is understanding the data by means of mathematical modeling. When modeling approaches fail, that is a valuable insight. Agents must treat non-convergence, conflicting results, and degenerate problems as evidence, not as errors to hide.
A subagent that fails and writes a thorough diagnosis is more valuable than one that hacks its way to a "successful" fit by cutting corners.
Retry Rounds: Escalating Simplification with Hard Limits
Set a hard limit on modeling/analysis rounds (recommend 3). Track rounds explicitly in a planning document so the agent cannot lose count.
Round 1: Initial diverse strategies. If all fail, diagnose the COMMON failure mode across instances.
After Round 1 failure:
- If the diagnosis is fundamental (data cannot support this analysis): STOP immediately. Do NOT retry.
- If the diagnosis suggests a structural fix: proceed to Round 2.
Round 2: Targeted fixes based on Round 1 diagnosis.
Round 3: Aggressive simplification. Results from heavily simplified approaches often have LIMITED value — they show directional patterns but cannot support specific recommendations. The report MUST explain what was lost and be EXTREMELY cautious on making recommendations.
After Round 3: STOP. Non-negotiable. Write the report with whatever evidence was gathered. Refrain from making recommendations other than those that would lead to more/better data.
Stop immediately without further rounds if the simplest possible approach was already tried and still failed.
Epistemic Humility: When to Stop and Say "We Don't Know"
Every orchestrator prompt must include explicit stopping conditions:
- All approaches fail after the round limit
- Converged approaches give conflicting recommendations (degenerate problem)
- Sensitivity to assumptions dominates — different reasonable assumptions give completely different answers
- Too few observations to support the analysis complexity
- All results show implausible values (fitting noise, not signal)
- Even the simplest possible approach fails
Conflict detection
For quantitative analyses, define objective criteria:
Magnitude consistency: Compare key metrics across approaches. If variation exceeds a domain-appropriate threshold, results are CONFLICTING.
Directional agreement: Do all approaches agree on the ACTION? (increase/maintain/decrease). Opposite actions = CONFLICTING.
Ranking consistency: Do approaches agree on which factors matter most? If not, CONFLICTING.
The caveats trap
Adding caveats to unsupported recommendations does NOT fix them. "We recommend X, with the caveat that we're uncertain" is WRONG when X and not-X are equally supported. The right response: "We cannot make a recommendation. Here's what experiment would resolve this."
What the stop report must contain
- What was tried and what failed (every approach, including failures)
- Root cause: why the data doesn't support reliable inference
- What CAN be concluded (robust across all approaches)
- What CANNOT be concluded (and why)
- Specific, realistic experiments that would resolve the uncertainty (not "collect more data" but "run a geo-holdout test on factor X for 8 weeks")
Prompt Design: Templates, Not Implementations
Agent prompts must never contain concrete numerical values. Concrete examples with actual numbers get copied verbatim, creating deterministic behavior. At that point, fixed code would be better and cheaper.
The test: if you change a number in a prompt example, does the agent's output change accordingly? If yes, the agent is copying, not reasoning.
Use placeholder syntax: <VALUE>, <COLUMN_NAME>, <N_INSTANCES>. Show structure and patterns, not implementations.
Skills and agent prompts should encode generic best practices:
- Good: "Run convergence diagnostics after fitting. Check that R-hat < threshold and ESS > threshold."
- Bad: "Check that R-hat < 1.05 and ESS > 400."
Too many skills or poorly written skills DEGRADE performance. Skills are guardrails, not scripts.
No style rules in agent prompts
Agent prompts must never contain their own plotting or styling rules (fonts, plt.style.use(...), color palettes). dlab enforces the decision-lab figure style at the environment level (use_dlab_plot_style, on by default) and injects the dlab-figure-style skill with the judgment rules; a system prompt that mandates a different style outranks that skill and silently wins. If a plotting-heavy agent needs a nudge, the right line is "load the available figure-style skill before writing plotting code" — not style rules. The same applies to bundled Python libraries: no plt.style.use/rcParams writes at import time, and prefer "C0"/"C1" cycle references over hard-coded colors.
Reporting Uncertainty and Making Recommendations
Two types of uncertainty
Model uncertainty (from posterior/confidence intervals): "Factor X has effect 2.1 [1.7, 2.5]." Supports decision-making — wide intervals mean proceed with caution.
Structural uncertainty (from model disagreement): "Different approaches give effect from to ." Does NOT support decision-making. You cannot choose between opposite conclusions by adding caveats.
Recommendation constraints
- Never recommend actions you haven't computed or simulated
- No napkin math — don't just multiply a metric by some number to obtain an action-recommendation; run an actual optimization if possible
- Must discuss MULTIPLE scenarios at different constraint levels, not one "best" answer
- Recommendations must be realistic and domain-sensible (e.g. concentrating all resources in one area is nonsensical and will not be accepted by human decision makers)
- Always report intervals, never point estimates alone
- Base actionable recommendations on conservative scenarios, not unconstrained optimizations
When the Problem Is Degenerate
A degenerate problem is one where multiple valid approaches give opposite conclusions. The agent must identify the ROOT CAUSE:
- High correlation between inputs (cannot separate individual effects)
- Insufficient variation in key variables
- Confounding with external factors
- Too few observations for the complexity required
- Prior sensitivity (data has no say)
The agent must recommend SPECIFIC experiments:
- Holdout tests: pause or vary one factor while others continue
- Geographic/segment experiments: vary factors across matched regions or other domain-related segments
- Controlled variation: randomly vary inputs by ±N% to create identifying variation
- Time-based experiments: measure before/after a deliberate change
- Be creative with regard to experiments, think what other experiments would make sense for the problem given
These must be realistic for the domain — not experiments that would never be approved.
Designing Parallel Exploration
Parallel approaches must be STRUCTURALLY diverse: different model forms, different data prep, different priors. Minor parameter tweaks waste parallel capacity.
You may use different LLMs per instance for genuine diversity. The orchestrator can combine data prep diversity with modeling diversity (pipe different data prep outputs into different models). This is NOT a necessity however.
Each instance runs in isolation — own data copy, own config, relative paths only.
Transparency: Document Everything
Every approach tried must be documented, including failures. The orchestrator writes two reports:
- Business report — executive summary, recommendations with uncertainty, caveats, experiments
- Technical report — all strategies explored, quality details, model selection rationale, sensitivity analysis, limitations
Agents must explain reasoning at every decision point.
The Code Workflow
Write code to disk as .py files, execute, check output. No inline evaluation. Scripts stay on disk for audit trail.
Subagents use relative paths only. Retry limit: max 10 per error, then stop and report.
Part 2: Technical Setup in decision-lab
Agent file format
Agent system prompts live in opencode/agents/<name>.md inside the decision-pack. Each is a markdown file with YAML frontmatter.
Frontmatter
---
description: One-line role description
mode: primary
tools:
read: true
edit: true
bash: true
parallel-agents: true
my-custom-tool: true
skills:
- skill-name
---
mode: primary — the main agent that coordinates the workflow. Only one per decision-pack.mode: subagent — a worker agent spawned by the orchestrator via parallel-agents tool.- Tools listed here override the global
opencode.json permissions for this agent.
- Skills reference directories under
opencode/skills/ that contain domain knowledge.
System prompt structure
A data science agent prompt should have these sections:
- Role and personality — methodical, transparent, honest about failures
- Task — what this agent does, as a numbered list
- Critical rules — non-negotiable constraints including anti-fabrication. Include library-specific rules (deprecated imports, internal scaling, what NOT to transform)
- Working directory rules — relative paths, never
../
- Workflow phases — step-by-step with clear inputs and outputs
- Output requirements — exact
summary.md structure for BOTH success AND failure
Orchestrator prompt pattern
- Spawns parallel agents with the
parallel-agents tool
- Reviews consolidated results with objective conflict detection criteria
- Implements retry protocol with hard round limit
- Writes both business and technical reports
- Has explicit "when to stop" criteria and a degenerate problem report template
- Does NOT specify implementation details the subagent should decide
Subagent prompt pattern
- Executes ONE strategy per run (does not autonomously simplify and retry)
- Writes structured
summary.md with identical sections across all instances
- Reports failures with thorough diagnosis (symptom, likely cause, what might help)
- All file operations use relative paths
- Reads data from
data/ (a copy placed in the instance directory)
How parallel agents work at runtime
Understanding the directory structure is critical for writing correct agent prompts.
Session directory layout
When the orchestrator spawns parallel agents, dlab creates this structure:
work-dir/ # The session root
├── .opencode/ # Orchestrator config (full permissions)
│ ├── agents/ # ALL agent .md files
│ ├── skills/ # ALL skills
│ ├── tools/ # ALL custom tools
│ └── opencode.json # Full permissions
├── _opencode_logs/ # JSON logs
│ ├── main.log # Orchestrator log
│ └── <agent>-parallel-run-<ts>/ # One dir per parallel run
│ ├── instance-1.log
│ ├── instance-2.log
│ └── consolidator.log
├── data/ # Session data (from --data)
├── parallel/ # Created dynamically by parallel-agents tool
│ └── run-<timestamp>/ # One dir per invocation
│ ├── instance-1/ # Isolated instance
│ │ ├── .opencode/ # FILTERED config (see below)
│ │ ├── data/ # COPY of session data
│ │ ├── summary.md # Instance output
│ │ └── [other outputs]
│ ├── instance-N/
│ │ └── [same structure]
│ └── consolidated_summary.md # Written by consolidator (if >= 3 instances)
├── report.md # Orchestrator output
└── technical_report.md
Instance isolation
Each instance is fully isolated:
- Separate data copy: The entire
data/ directory is copied into each instance. Instances cannot see each other's files.
- Filtered .opencode/: Each instance gets only the tools, skills, and permissions declared in its agent frontmatter. The
parallel-agents tool is always removed (instances cannot spawn their own subagents).
- Mode promotion: The agent's
mode is changed from subagent to primary in the instance copy, since it runs as the sole agent in its OpenCode session.
- Relative paths only: Because instances run in
parallel/run-<ts>/instance-N/, any use of ../ or absolute paths breaks isolation.
What the orchestrator sees after parallel runs
After all instances complete, the orchestrator can read:
parallel/run-<ts>/instance-N/summary.md — each instance's structured outputparallel/run-<ts>/consolidated_summary.md — the consolidator's comparison (if 3+ instances ran)- Any other files the instances wrote (models, plots, cleaned data, etc.)
The consolidator
The consolidator is auto-generated from the summarizer_prompt in the parallel agent YAML. It:
- Has read-only permissions (no edit, no bash, no custom tools)
- Reads all
summary.md files from completed instances
- Writes
consolidated_summary.md at the run root
- Only runs when 3 or more instances complete
- Should compare and present trade-offs, never pick a winner
Multiple parallel runs in one session
The orchestrator can invoke parallel-agents multiple times (e.g., first for data preparation, then for modeling). Each invocation creates a new parallel/run-<timestamp>/ directory.
Parallel agent YAML config
Each parallel agent needs a YAML config in opencode/parallel_agents/.
name: <agent-name>
description: "What these parallel instances do"
timeout_minutes: 60
failure_behavior: continue
max_instances: 5
instance_models:
- "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-5"
- "google/gemini-2.5-pro"
subagent_suffix_prompt: |
When you complete your task, write summary.md with:
## Approach
## Results
## Diagnostics
## Recommendations
summarizer_prompt: |
Read all summary.md files from the parallel instances.
Create a consolidated comparison. Do NOT pick a winner —
present all approaches with their trade-offs so the
orchestrator can decide.
summarizer_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-5"
Design decisions
subagent_suffix_prompt: Define exact output structure. The consolidator compares across instances, so all summaries must have the same sections. Include sections for both success and failure.
summarizer_prompt: The consolidator compares, it does not decide. It has read-only permissions and cannot run code.
failure_behavior:
continue — independent tasks (different modeling approaches)fail_fast — dependent tasks (if one fails, others are useless)retry — flaky operations (API calls, cloud compute)
instance_models: Different LLMs per instance gives diversity in analytical approach.
Common Mistakes
- Writing prompts with concrete example values that agents copy instead of reasoning
- Not including anti-fabrication rules in every agent prompt
- Not including "when to stop" criteria in the orchestrator
- Not specifying what subagents should write when they fail
- Letting subagents autonomously retry instead of reporting back to the orchestrator
- Using absolute paths in subagent prompts (breaks parallel isolation)
- Specifying implementation details in orchestrator prompts that the subagent should decide
- Recommending actions without computing them (napkin math)
- Adding caveats to unsupported recommendations instead of refusing to recommend
- Presenting one "best" answer instead of multiple scenarios
- Using minor parameter tweaks as "diverse" parallel strategies
- Allowing try/except patterns that silently substitute values
- Not including library-specific rules in subagent prompts
- Suggesting vague experiments ("collect more data") instead of specific ones
- Skipping the technical report
