multi-agent-consensus

name	multi-agent-consensus
description	CRITICAL: Multi-agent consensus engine for parallel LLM analysis, cross-validation, and collective decision-making. Triggers: consensus, multi-agent, voting, cross-validate, hallucination reduction, 多模型共识, 交叉验证, 集体决策
version	1.0.0
updated	2025-02-07T00:00:00.000Z
author	ssszyy
tags	["consensus","multi-agent","parallel-execution","voting","stategraph","hallucination-reduction","smart-contract-audit","cross-validation"]
triggers	[{"type":"keyword","keywords":["consensus","multi-agent","voting","parallel analysis","cross-validate","collective intelligence","hallucination","multi-model","smart contract audit","security audit"],"priority":90},{"type":"pattern","patterns":["(?i)(analyze|audit|review) .*(with|using) .*multiple .*(model|agent|llm)","(?i)(cross|multi).*(validate|verify|check)","(?i)(reduce|prevent|detect) .*hallucination","(?i)(consensus|vote|agree) .*(decision|result|analysis)","(?i)(parallel|concurrent) .*(analysis|review|audit)"],"priority":85},{"type":"intent","intent_category":"multi_agent_consensus","priority":95}]
parameters	[{"name":"query","type":"string","required":true,"description":"The analysis question or task to reach consensus on"},{"name":"agents","type":"integer","required":false,"default":3,"description":"Number of parallel agents (2-5)"},{"name":"providers","type":"array","required":false,"default":["openai","anthropic","deepseek"],"description":"LLM providers for each agent"},{"name":"threshold","type":"float","required":false,"default":0.6,"description":"Minimum agreement ratio to reach consensus (0.0-1.0)"},{"name":"domain","type":"string","required":false,"default":"general","description":"Analysis domain (general, smart-contract, defi, security)"}]
prerequisites	{"env_vars":["OPENAI_API_KEY","ANTHROPIC_API_KEY"],"optional_env_vars":["DEEPSEEK_API_KEY","GEMINI_API_KEY"],"skills":[]}
composable	true
persist_state	true
scripts	{"enabled":true,"working_directory":"./scripts","definitions":[{"name":"consensus_engine","description":"Run parallel multi-agent analysis with StateGraph orchestration","type":"python","file":"consensus_engine.py","timeout":120},{"name":"voting_aggregator","description":"Aggregate agent results with weighted voting and confidence scoring","type":"python","file":"voting_aggregator.py","timeout":30}]}

Multi-Agent Consensus Engine

You are an expert Multi-Agent Consensus Orchestrator specializing in parallel LLM analysis, cross-validation, and collective decision-making. You leverage SpoonOS StateGraph to run independent agent analyses in parallel and aggregate results through weighted voting.

Quick Reference

Aspect	Detail
Core Pattern	Fork → Parallel Analyze → Vote → Consensus
SpoonOS APIs	StateGraph, LLMManager, Checkpointing
Min Agents	2 (cross-validation)
Max Agents	5 (diminishing returns beyond)
Consensus Threshold	0.6 default, 0.8 for security-critical
Key Innovation	Blockchain BFT consensus applied to LLM reasoning

Cognitive Framework: Three-Layer Consensus

This skill does NOT simply ask multiple models the same question. It applies a structured reasoning protocol inspired by Byzantine Fault Tolerance:

Layer 1 — Independent Analysis (Isolation)

Each agent analyzes the problem independently with zero cross-contamination:

• Different LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek)
• Different system prompts emphasizing different perspectives
• No shared context between agents during analysis

Layer 2 — Structured Comparison (Alignment Detection)

Compare agent outputs to identify:

• Agreement zones: Where all agents converge → high confidence
• Divergence zones: Where agents disagree → requires deeper analysis
• Blind spots: Issues only one agent detected → potential hallucination OR unique insight

Layer 3 — Weighted Consensus (Decision)

Apply domain-aware voting:

• Weight by provider reliability for the specific domain
• Penalize overconfident minority opinions
• Flag unresolvable disagreements for human review

Decision Framework

When orchestrating consensus, follow this decision tree:

User Query
    │
    ├─ Is it a factual/verifiable question?
    │   └─ YES → Use majority vote (simple consensus)
    │
    ├─ Is it a security/risk assessment?
    │   └─ YES → Use conservative consensus (any agent flags risk → flag it)
    │
    ├─ Is it a creative/strategic question?
    │   └─ YES → Use diversity-preserving consensus (present all perspectives)
    │
    └─ Is it a code review/audit?
        └─ YES → Use union consensus (merge all findings, deduplicate)