agent-teams

name

agent-teams

description

Orchestrate Claude Code agent teams for collaborative multi-agent work. Use when tasks need 2+ coordinated agents that communicate with each other. Supports research teams (competing hypotheses, parallel investigation), implementation teams (architect + implementers + reviewer), hybrid teams, and code review teams. Integrates with AA-MA for structured execution. Handles team creation, task distribution, inter-agent debate, progress monitoring, error recovery, and graceful shutdown. Keywords: team, teammate, multi-agent, swarm, coordinate, collaborate, spawn agents, parallel agents communicate, competing hypotheses, research team, implementation team.

Agent Teams Orchestration

Orchestrate persistent Claude Code agent teams with shared task lists, inter-agent messaging, and structured coordination for complex collaborative work.

When to Use This Skill

Use agent-teams when:

• Task needs 2+ agents that communicate with each other
• Research needs competing hypotheses with adversarial debate
• Implementation needs architect + implementers + reviewer coordination
• Work benefits from persistent teammates over one-shot subagents

Do NOT use — use these instead:

• Tasks are independent, no communication needed → dispatching-parallel-agents
• Sequential tasks with review gates, same session → subagent-driven-development
• Single investigation or code change → direct execution

Decision Flowchart

Complex task requiring multiple agents?
├── NO → Execute directly or use a single subagent
└── YES → Do agents need to communicate/coordinate?
    ├── NO → dispatching-parallel-agents (one-shot, parallel)
    └── YES → Are tasks sequential with review between each?
        ├── YES → subagent-driven-development (same session)
        └── NO → ★ agent-teams (persistent, communicating)

---

Task Classification

Classify the user's request to select the right team type:

User Request → keyword + intent analysis:

  "research/investigate/explore/compare/analyze/evaluate"
    → RESEARCH team

  "implement/build/create/fix/refactor/deploy/migrate"
    → IMPLEMENTATION team

  "review/audit/check/validate/assess"
    → REVIEW team

  Both research + implementation signals present
    → HYBRID team (research phase → implementation phase)

  AA-MA active? → read milestone type for additional signal

  Ambiguous? → AskUserQuestion to clarify

Type	When	Team Size	Debate Mode
RESEARCH	Investigation, comparison, analysis	2-4 researchers + synthesizer	YES
IMPLEMENTATION	Building, fixing, deploying	architect + 1-3 impl + reviewer	No
HYBRID	Research then build	Phase 1: research → Phase 2: impl	Phase 1 only
REVIEW	Code audit, security review	2-3 specialized reviewers	No

---

7-Phase Lifecycle

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 1: ANALYZE  → Classify task, detect AA-MA     │
│ Phase 2: COMPOSE  → Select roles, size team         │
│ Phase 3: APPROVE  → Present proposal to user        │
│ Phase 4: SPAWN    → TeamCreate, spawn teammates     │
│ Phase 5: COORDINATE → Messages, progress, debate    │
│ Phase 6: SHUTDOWN → Drain, verify, shutdown          │
│ Phase 7: CLEANUP  → TeamDelete, report, AA-MA sync  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Phase 1: Task Analysis

1. Parse user intent — extract keywords, scope, complexity
2. Check .claude/dev/active/ for AA-MA tasks
3. Classify: RESEARCH / IMPLEMENTATION / HYBRID / REVIEW
4. Estimate team size (2-5 teammates; below 2 → recommend subagents instead)
5. If ambiguous, ask user via AskUserQuestion

Phase 2: Team Composition

Select roles from ROLE_TEMPLATES.md based on task type:

Type	Roles to Spawn
RESEARCH	2-4 Researchers (Explore) + optional Synthesizer (Explore)
IMPLEMENTATION	1 Architect (Plan) + 1-3 Implementers (general-purpose) + 1 Reviewer (code-reviewer)
HYBRID	Phase 1: Research roles → Phase 2: Implementation roles
REVIEW	2-3 Reviewers (code-reviewer / security-auditor / test-automator)

Plan approval logic (adaptive, per-teammate):

Teammate modifies core/shared modules (3+ importers)? → plan mode required
Modifies API contracts, DB schema, config?             → plan mode required
Creates new isolated files only?                       → NOT required
Writes tests only?                                     → NOT required
Research/review role?                                  → NEVER required

Team naming convention: {task-type}-{short-descriptor} (e.g., research-auth-audit, impl-user-dashboard)

Phase 3: User Approval

Present the team proposal via AskUserQuestion:

Team Proposal: {team-name}
Type: {RESEARCH|IMPLEMENTATION|HYBRID|REVIEW}
Teammates ({count}):
  - {role}: {name} ({agent-type}) — {purpose}
  - ...
Tasks ({count}):
  - {task summary} → assigned to {name}
  - ...
AA-MA: {active task name | not active}
Estimated scope: {brief}

Approve this team configuration?
- Approve (Recommended)
- Modify (adjust roles/tasks)
- Cancel

Phase 4: Team Spawn

Execute in this order:

1. TeamCreate — create team with descriptive name
2. TaskCreate — create all tasks with descriptions, activeForm
3. TaskUpdate — set dependencies (addBlockedBy) between tasks
4. Task tool — spawn each teammate with:
   • team_name parameter
   • name parameter (human-readable role name)
   • subagent_type from role template
   • mode set appropriately (plan for risky changes)
   • Prompt from role template with task-specific details
5. TaskUpdate — assign tasks to teammates (set owner)

Spawn prompt structure:

You are the {role} on team "{team-name}".

Your assignment: {task description}

Team context:
- Team type: {type}
- Your teammates: {list with roles}
- Your tasks: {assigned task IDs and descriptions}

Working directory: {path}

Instructions:
1. Read your assigned tasks via TaskGet
2. Mark tasks in_progress via TaskUpdate when starting
3. Communicate findings/blockers via SendMessage to team lead
4. Mark tasks completed via TaskUpdate when done
5. Check TaskList for next available work

{role-specific instructions from ROLE_TEMPLATES.md}

Phase 5: Coordinate & Monitor

As team lead (your session), you:

1. Receive messages — teammates auto-deliver messages when they complete tasks or need help
2. Track progress — periodically check TaskList for status
3. Unblock teammates — answer questions, resolve conflicts, reassign work
4. Sync state — after each task completion, sync TaskList↔AA-MA per SYNC_PROTOCOL.md
5. Trigger quality gates — see QUALITY_GATES.md
6. Handle errors — see ERROR_RECOVERY.md

AA-MA Sync (if active): After each teammate task completion, immediately update AA-MA files (tasks.md Result Log, reference.md facts, context-log.md decisions, provenance.log). Follow domain ownership rules in references/AA_MA_INTEGRATION.md § Bidirectional Sync Protocol. Escalate ambiguous updates to user.

For RESEARCH teams — Competing Hypotheses Protocol:

After researchers complete initial investigation:

1. SendMessage to each researcher: "Share your findings and explicitly challenge the other researchers' conclusions"
2. Allow one debate round via peer SendMessage
3. Synthesizer (or lead) consolidates surviving conclusions
4. Only findings that survived adversarial challenge are reported

Detail: See references/TEAM_PATTERNS.md § Competing Hypotheses

Phase 6: Shutdown

Follow the graceful shutdown protocol:

1. Drain — message busy teammates to finish current task (don't start new)
2. Verify — TaskList check, all tasks complete or explicitly deferred
3. Shutdown — SendMessage type:shutdown_request to each (reverse spawn order)
4. Handle rejections — if teammate rejects, allow to finish, retry

Detail: See references/SHUTDOWN_PROTOCOL.md

Phase 7: Cleanup & Report

1. Final AA-MA sync — if active, perform final bidirectional sync:
   • Sync all remaining TaskList statuses → tasks.md
   • Verify all AA-MA content is current
   • Follow SYNC_PROTOCOL.md § Team Shutdown sync
2. TeamDelete — remove team and task directories
3. Final report — summarise to user:
   • Tasks completed vs deferred
   • Key findings (research) or changes made (implementation)
   • Files modified
   • Any follow-up actions needed

Detail: See references/AA_MA_INTEGRATION.md § Bidirectional Sync Protocol

---

AA-MA Integration

When .claude/dev/active/ contains an active task:

• Detection: Check for active AA-MA task at Phase 1
• Milestone mapping: Parse tasks.md ACTIVE milestone → map to team tasks
• State sync: Teammate completions update tasks.md, reference.md, context-log.md, provenance.log
• Finalization: Run AA-MA Finalization Protocol at milestone boundaries
• Commits: Include AA-MA commit signature

The skill works identically without AA-MA — state sync is simply skipped.

Detail: See references/AA_MA_INTEGRATION.md

---

Error Handling

Scenario	Response
File conflict between teammates	See ERROR_RECOVERY.md § File Conflicts
Teammate stuck/unresponsive	Message → wait → reassign → replace
Task fails	Retry same → different teammate → escalate to user
Partial completion	Preserve state, present options to user

Detail: See references/ERROR_RECOVERY.md

---

Quality Gates

Gate	When	Enforced By
Design Review	Before implementation	Architect teammate
Code Review	After each impl task	Reviewer teammate
Test Verification	After impl + review	Tester or lead
Consistency Check	After all tasks	Lead (git status, diff, tests)
AA-MA Validation	Milestone boundary	Lead

Detail: See references/QUALITY_GATES.md

---

Reference Files

File	Content
references/ROLE_TEMPLATES.md	6 role definitions with spawn prompts
references/TEAM_PATTERNS.md	Research/impl/hybrid/review patterns
references/AA_MA_INTEGRATION.md	Milestone mapping, state sync
references/ERROR_RECOVERY.md	Conflicts, stuck, failures, partials
references/SHUTDOWN_PROTOCOL.md	4-phase graceful + emergency shutdown
references/QUALITY_GATES.md	5 gate types + enforcement

Templates

File	Content
templates/research-team.md	Ready-to-use research team config
templates/implementation-team.md	Ready-to-use implementation team config
templates/review-team.md	Ready-to-use review team config

---

Quick Reference Checklist

Before Team Creation

• Classified task type (RESEARCH/IMPLEMENTATION/HYBRID/REVIEW)
• Checked for AA-MA active tasks
• Selected roles from ROLE_TEMPLATES.md
• Sized team (2-5; <2 → use subagents instead)
• Determined plan approval needs per teammate
• Presented proposal and got user approval

During Team Execution

• All teammates spawned and tasks assigned
• Monitoring TaskList for progress
• Responding to teammate messages
• Quality gates enforced at checkpoints
• Research teams: debate round triggered after initial findings
• Errors handled per ERROR_RECOVERY.md

After Team Completion

• All tasks completed or explicitly deferred
• Graceful shutdown executed (SHUTDOWN_PROTOCOL.md)
• TeamDelete called
• Final report presented to user
• AA-MA files updated (if active)
• Git commit with changes (AA-MA signature if applicable)