agentic-multiagent

name	agentic-multiagent
description	Multi-agent pattern for tasks requiring specialization or scale beyond single-agent capacity. Covers topology, routing, and coordination design.

Agentic Multi-Agent Pattern

[!TIP] TL;DR: Use this pattern ONLY when clear specialization or scale problems exist that a single agent can't handle. Multi-agent adds coordination overhead—only use when benefits outweigh costs. Key Principle: "The trigger for multi-agent use should be a clear bottleneck that specialization or scale actually solves, not architectural preference."

Pattern Overview

Multi-agent systems operate on the belief that a task benefits from decomposition into specialized roles, where parallel or modular execution outweighs the overhead of coordination.

Multi-agent systems are useful when:

• Tasks are too large for a single context window
• Different stages require different reasoning styles
• Parallel execution reduces overall time

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                   MULTI-AGENT TOPOLOGY                    │
│                                                          │
│  ┌─────────────┐                                        │
│  │ Coordinator │  (Task routing, orchestration)          │
│  └──────┬──────┘                                        │
│         │                                                 │
│    ┌────┴────┬────────────┐                             │
│    ▼         ▼            ▼                             │
│ ┌──────┐ ┌────────┐ ┌──────────┐                        │
│ │ Spec │ │ Spec B │ │ Spec C  │  (Parallel execution)   │
│ │  A   │ │        │ │          │                        │
│ └──────┘ └────────┘ └──────────┘                        │
│    │         │            │                             │
│    └─────────┴────────────┘                             │
│              │                                          │
│              ▼                                           │
│         [Result Aggregation / Synthesis]                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Decision Gate

When to use: Apply this pattern when:

• Question 5 = YES: Task has specialization OR scale problem that one agent can't handle

BOTH specialization AND scale must be evaluated first using Questions 1-4.

Two Core Triggers

Trigger 1: Specialization Needs

Task Component	Reasoning Style	Specialist Agent
Legal review	Formal, precise	Legal Specialist
Financial modeling	Numeric, analytical	Finance Specialist
Security auditing	Adversarial, cautious	Security Specialist
Code generation	Technical, systematic	Dev Specialist
Creative writing	Open, generative	Creative Specialist

Signal: Clear domain boundaries in the task that need different reasoning styles.

Trigger 2: Scale Problems

Problem	Single Agent Issue	Multi-Agent Solution
Context overflow	Task too large for window	Split across agents
Serial bottleneck	Sequential steps take too long	Parallel execution
Rate limiting	API limits slow processing	Distribute load

Signal: Task CANNOT fit into one agent's capacity.

Three Key Design Choices

1. Task Ownership

Who owns each task component?

Option	When to Use	Example
Dedicated specialist	Clear domain expertise needed	Legal agent owns contract review
Pooled workers	Many similar subtasks	Multiple crawler agents
Hierarchical	Tasks have natural parent-child	Manager → Workers

2. Routing Logic

How are tasks assigned to agents?

Option	When to Use	Example
Deterministic rules	Predictable task types	If code → Dev Agent
LLM routing	Ambiguous task types	Router decides based on content
Self-selection	Agents know their capabilities	Agent claims suitable tasks
Central coordinator	Complex orchestration needs	Coordinator dispatches

3. Topology

How do agents interact?

Topology	Structure	Best For
Sequential	Output of A → Input of B	Pipeline dependencies
Parallel	All agents work simultaneously	Independent subtasks
Debate	Agents argue positions	Diverse perspectives
Hierarchical	Manager → Subordinates	Nested complexity

Sequential:      Parallel:        Debate:

[Agent A]        ┌───────┐       [Agent A]
    │           │ Agent │       ↙      ↘
[Agent B]        ├───────┤      [Arbiter]
    │           │ Agent │       ↘      ↙
[Agent C]        ├───────┤       [Agent B]
               └───────┘

Costs of Multi-Agent

Multi-agent systems add significant overhead:

Cost	Impact
Coordination complexity	Who assigns tasks? Who resolves conflicts?
Shared state management	How do agents share context?
Failure propagation	One agent failure can cascade
Communication overhead	Extra latency for messaging
Debugging difficulty	Harder to trace execution paths

Rule: If a single strong agent can handle the task, use one. The overhead of multiple agents outweighs the benefit.

Failure Modes

Failure Mode 1: Routing Failures

Signal	Cause	Fix
Wrong specialist selection	Routing logic issue	Use deterministic rules for predictable cases
Outputs don't combine well	Integration problem	Define clear output contracts
Deadlock	Circular dependencies	Add timeout + fallback

Fix Template

If routing failures →
  Analyze: Is routing deterministic? YES → debug rules
                           NO → consider deterministic routing

Failure Mode 2: Coordination Overhead

Signal	Cause	Fix
Slower than single agent	Too much coordination	Reduce agent count OR simplify topology
Complex state sharing	Shared state management	Use structured state with clear ownership

AGEM Integration

Native Tools

• spawn_agem_agent — Create specialist agents with personas
• get_cohomology — Check cross-agent consistency (H¹ should be 0)
• sheaf-consistency-enforcer — Cross-agent state management
• reset_agem_engine — Clean state between runs

MCP Server Usage

• sheaf-consistency-enforcer — Critical: Track state consistency across agents
• hipai-montague — Belief tracking per agent
• verifier-graph — Build causal chains across agent outputs
• conscience-servitor — Ethical evaluation of combined decisions

Workflow Template

1. DECOMPOSE:
   a. Identify specialization boundaries
   b. Identify scale bottlenecks
   c. Define task ownership

2. ARCHITECT:
   a. Choose topology (sequential/parallel/debate)
   b. Define routing logic
   c. Define output contracts

3. EXECUTE:
   a. Spawn specialist agents
   b. Register each in sheaf-consistency-enforcer
   c. Route tasks per logic
   d. Aggregate results

4. VALIDATE:
   a. Check H¹ = 0 (agreement across agents)
   b. If H¹ > 0 → spawn_agem_agent for resolution
   c. Verify combined output quality

Quick-Start Template

## Multi-Agent Task Definition

**Task**: [What needs to be done]
**Specialization Triggers**:

- [Domain boundary 1] → [Specialist A]
- [Domain boundary 2] → [Specialist B]

**Scale Triggers**:

- [Bottleneck] → [Solution]

### Topology: [sequential/parallel/debate/hierarchical]

### Routing Logic: [deterministic/LLM/self-select/coordinator]

### Agents:

┌─────────────────┬────────────────┬─────────────────┐
│ Specialist A │ [Persona] │ [Tasks owned] │
├─────────────────┼────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ Specialist B │ [Persona] │ [Tasks owned] │
└─────────────────┴────────────────┴─────────────────┘

### Output Contracts:

- Specialist A → produces: [X], format: [Y]
- Specialist B → produces: [Z], format: [W]

### State Management:

- Shared state: [what's shared, how]
- Agent-local state: [what's private]

### Failure Handling:

- Agent failure: [fallback strategy]
- Routing failure: [fallback strategy]
- Consensus failure (H¹ > 0): [resolution strategy]

AGEM Spawn Patterns

For different topologies:

# Parallel specialists (debate-style)
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Advocate") # Argues position A
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Challenger") # Argues position B
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Arbiter")    # Resolves debate

# Sequential pipeline
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Collector")  # Gathers data
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Analyzer")   # Processes data
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Reporter")    # Generates output

# Hierarchical
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Manager")     # Coordinates
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Worker_A")    # Subordinate
spawn_agem_agent(persona="Worker_B")    # Subordinate

Decision Summary

Question	Answer	Use Multi-Agent?
Questions 1-4 resolved?	YES	Required before considering multi-agent
Clear specialization need?	YES	✓ Consider
Clear scale need?	YES	✓ Consider
Either trigger present?	YES	→ Use Multi-Agent
No clear trigger?	NO	→ Single agent sufficient

---

See Also

• agentic-sequential — For pipeline-style decomposition
• agentic-react — Each specialist may use ReAct
• agentic-planner — Coordinator may use planning
• agentic-reflection — Specialists may use reflection for quality