# Module 4: Multi-Agent Orchestration

## Lesson 4.1: Why One Agent Is Not Enough

A single agent, no matter how smart, hits three ceilings:

1. **Context ceiling** — One agent doing everything means one context window holding everything. File contents, database schemas, business logic, deployment configs — it all competes for space.

2. **Capability ceiling** — A generalist agent is mediocre at everything. A specialized agent (backend dev, security reviewer, UI designer) outperforms the generalist at its domain.

3. **Reliability ceiling** — One agent failing = everything fails. Multi-agent systems degrade gracefully — one team's failure doesn't take down the whole system.

### The Stacking Insight

```
Single smart model  <  Two specialized agents  <  Orchestrator + 3 teams
```

Benchmarks measure single models. Production wins with multi-agent orchestration.

---

## Lesson 4.2: Orchestration Patterns

### Pattern 1: Dispatcher (Hub-and-Spoke)

```
User → Orchestrator → dispatches to:
                       ├── Specialist A (parallel)
                       ├── Specialist B (parallel)
                       └── Specialist C (parallel)
              ← synthesizes results
```

**Best for**: Tasks that need multiple perspectives or parallel work. The orchestrator doesn't work — it delegates, then synthesizes.

**Implementation**: `agent-team` extension. Teams defined in `teams.yaml`. Orchestrator uses `dispatch_agent` tool.

### Pattern 2: Pipeline (Sequential)

```
Step 1: Planner → Step 2: Builder (gets $INPUT=plan) → Step 3: Reviewer (gets $INPUT=code)
```

**Best for**: Workflows with clear stages where each depends on the previous.

**Implementation**: `agent-chain` extension. Pipelines in `agent-chain.yaml`. `$INPUT` carries forward, `$ORIGINAL` preserves user prompt.

### Pattern 3: Peer-to-Peer (Flat)

```
Agent A ←→ Agent B ←→ Agent C
   (no orchestrator, all peers)
```

**Best for**: Cross-device work, heterogeneous model teams, flat information flow.

**Implementation**: `coms` / `coms-net` extensions. 4 tools: list, send, get, await.

---

## Lesson 4.2b: P-Threads — Parallel Agent Execution

**Concept**: Run N agents simultaneously on the same task. Each agent works independently. Pick the best result.

### Pattern

```
User prompt
     │
     ├── Agent 1 (Claude Opus)  ──►  output_1
     ├── Agent 2 (Gemini Pro)   ──►  output_2
     ├── Agent 3 (DeepSeek V3)  ──►  output_3
     └── Agent 4 (Qwen)         ──►  output_4
          │
          ▼
     Judge (or human) picks best
```

### When to Use P-Threads
- Creative work (UI generation, content writing, architecture design)
- Benchmarking (compare models side-by-side on same task)
- High-stakes decisions (multiple perspectives reduce blind spots)
- Exploration (try N approaches, pick the winner)

### Implementation with mprocs

```yaml
# mprocs-teams.yaml
procs:
  claude-lead:
    cmd: ["claude", "-p", "{{PROMPT}}"]
  gemini:
    cmd: ["gemini", "-p", "{{PROMPT}}"]
  opencode:
    cmd: ["opencode", "--model", "opencode-go/deepseek-v4-flash", "-p", "{{PROMPT}}"]
```

Run all three simultaneously, collect outputs, pick best.

### Implementation with agent-mux

Your Tauri UI (`agent-mux`) is a P-thread controller: it spawns agents into panes, monitors progress, and presents results for comparison.

### Key Design Rules
- Each agent gets the **same prompt** (fair comparison)
- Agents are **isolated** (no cross-contamination)
- Results are **collected and compared** by a judge or human
- Cost = N × single-agent cost (budget accordingly)

---

## Lesson 4.2c: F-Threads — Fusion (N Agents, One Winner)

**Concept**: N agents produce outputs. A synthetic judge (or rubric) selects the winner. More sophisticated than P-threads — includes evaluation.

### Pattern

```
Agent 1 ──► Output 1 ──┐
Agent 2 ──► Output 2 ──┤
Agent 3 ──► Output 3 ──┤──► Judge → Winner
Agent 4 ──► Output 4 ──┤
Agent 5 ──► Output 5 ──┘
```

### When to Use F-Threads
- Code generation (generate N variants, pick best compiled/tested)
- UI generation (your UI Agents system uses this — 3 Vue generators, 1 winner)
- Architecture decisions (N proposals, judge evaluates against criteria)
- Bug fixes (N approaches, pick the one that passes tests)

### Your UI Agents System as F-Thread Example

Your `ui-agents` project uses F-threads natively:
- 3 UI Generation agents (Sonnet + open source variants)
- Validation team screenshots + checks each
- Lead picks the best result
- Loser outputs are discarded (or logged for learning)

### Judge Criteria Template

```json
{
  "criteria": [
    {"name": "correctness", "weight": 0.4},
    {"name": "efficiency", "weight": 0.2},
    {"name": "maintainability", "weight": 0.2},
    {"name": "completeness", "weight": 0.2}
  ]
}
```

---

## Lesson 4.3: Depth-2 Delegation

The production-proven hierarchy from lead-agents and ui-agents:

```
User
  │
  v
Orchestrator (Opus-level, thinking only)
  │
  ├── Planning Team Lead (synthesizes, delegates)
  │     ├── Product Manager (domain worker)
  │     └── UX Researcher (domain worker)
  │
  ├── Engineering Team Lead (synthesizes, delegates)
  │     ├── Frontend Dev (domain worker)
  │     └── Backend Dev (domain worker)
  │
  └── Validation Team Lead (synthesizes, delegates)
        ├── QA Engineer (domain worker)
        └── Security Reviewer (domain worker)
```

### The Rule

**Leads and orchestrators are thinkers, planners, and managers. They are not doers.** They delegate to workers who write files and make changes. Workers don't make strategic decisions.

---

## Lesson 4.4: Agent Experts That Remember

### Mental Models

Every agent maintains its own expertise file:

```yaml
# engineering-lead-mental-model.yaml
observations:
  - type: architectural_pattern
    observation: "We use vertical slice architecture for new features"
    evidence: "PR #142, PR #156"
  - type: common_failure
    observation: "WebSocket reconnection logic needs retry with backoff"
    evidence: "Incident log 2026-03-15"
```

### Self-Improve Commands

Agents periodically run self-improve commands that:
1. Read the mental model
2. Compare against actual codebase (grep, read files)
3. Update stale entries
4. Add new findings

### Compounding Knowledge

Session 1: Agent learns project structure
Session 2: Agent learns common patterns
Session 3: Agent learns failure modes
Session N: Agent operates at senior engineer level for this codebase

---

## Lesson 4.5: Domain Locking

Every agent has explicit domain permissions:

```yaml
# Engineering Lead domain
domain:
  - path: .pi/multi-team/
    read: true
    upsert: true
    delete: false
  - path: src/
    read: true
    upsert: true
    delete: false
  - path: .
    read: true
    upsert: false
    delete: false  # Can't delete anything at root
```

Three levels:
- `read: false` — can't even see the files
- `upsert: false` — can read, can't write
- `delete: false` — can read+write, can't delete

---

## Lesson 4.6: TillDone Task Discipline

### The Pattern

1. Orchestrator creates task list before delegating
2. Tasks are assigned to specific agents
3. Agents mark tasks in progress → done
4. Footer shows live progress
5. If turn ends with incomplete tasks, agent is nudged to continue

### Why It Matters

Prevents the #1 multi-agent failure mode: an orchestrator that delegates, gets results, and then wanders off without completing the plan. The task list is the forcing function.

---

## Lesson 4.7: Agent Chains

### YAML-Defined Pipelines

```yaml
# agent-chain.yaml
steps:
  - agent: planner
    prompt: "Create a detailed plan for: $INPUT"
  - agent: builder
    prompt: "Implement the following plan: $INPUT"
  - agent: reviewer
    prompt: "Review this code: $INPUT"
```

### Variables

- `$INPUT` — Output of the previous step
- `$ORIGINAL` — The user's original prompt (always accessible)

---

## Lesson 4.8: Pi-to-Pi Communication

### The Shift: Hierarchy → Flat

Traditional agent communication is top-down:
```
Orchestrator → Team Lead → Worker → (result goes back up)
```

Peer-to-peer flips this. Agents are equals:

```
Agent A ←→ Agent B
   ↕          ↕
Agent C ←→ Agent D
```

### Reference Implementation: MCP Agent Mail (Jeff Emanuel, 1,955★)

Jeff's MCP Agent Mail provides a more formal coordination layer:
- **Agent identities**: Each agent has a registered identity
- **Inboxes**: Messages are delivered to agent inboxes
- **Searchable threads**: Full thread history with search
- **Advisory file leases**: Agents can reserve files to prevent conflicts

This complements our simpler P2P approach. Use direct coms for speed, MCP Agent Mail for audit trails.

### Four Tools

| Tool | What It Does |
|------|-------------|
| `*_list` | List peer agents (name, model, context usage) |
| `*_send` | Send a prompt; returns msg_id |
| `*_get` | Non-blocking poll on msg_id |
| `*_await` | Block until reply or timeout |

### Safety

- Max 5 hops (prevents A→B→A→B loops)
- Audit log (msg_id, sender, hops — never prompt bodies)
- Self-healing (stale sockets pruned, heartbeats every 10s)

---

## Lesson 4.9: Conversation Awareness

Every agent reads a shared JSONL conversation log before responding:

```
.pi/multi-team/sessions/<session-id>/conversation.jsonl
```

This means:
- Agents know what's already been discussed
- Agents don't repeat work
- Full audit trail of every interaction

## Lesson 4.9b: Service Connectors

Agents need to interact with external services: Twitter, GitHub, Linear, Slack, email.

### The Pattern

Each service gets an MCP connector:

```
Agent → MCP Client → Service Connector → External API
  ├── twitter-connector: post, search, DM, timeline
  ├── github-connector: PRs, issues, actions, code search
  ├── linear-connector: issues, comments, projects, cycles
  ├── slack-connector: messages, channels, threads, search
  ├── email-connector: send, read, search, folders
  └── custom: build your own via connector SDK
```

### Design Rules

1. **One connector per service** — composable, not monolithic
2. **MCP protocol** — standard interface for all connectors
3. **Scoped credentials** — each connector has its own auth (no shared tokens)
4. **Rate-limited** — connectors enforce service rate limits
5. **Audit-logged** — every external action is logged

### Reference Implementation

Jeff Emanuel's `flywheel_connectors` (79★) provides a mesh-native protocol for this. His approach:
- Each connector is a standalone Rust binary
- Connectors communicate via a shared mesh protocol
- Agents discover connectors dynamically
- Built-in connectors for Twitter, Linear, GitHub

### Integration with Agent Teams

```
Orchestrator → delegates to agent
  Agent → calls service connector via MCP
    Connector → authenticates → calls API → returns result
  Agent → processes result → continues work
Orchestrator → synthesizes final output
```

---

## Lesson 4.10: The CEO Board System

8 specialist agents for strategic decision-making:

| Board Member | Focus | Time Horizon |
|-------------|-------|--------------|
| Revenue | Cash flow, short-term wins | 30-90 days |
| Compounder | Trust, long-term value | 6-24 months |
| Contrarian | Assumptions, blind spots | 3x weight on dissent |
| Technical Architect | System durability | Ongoing |
| Product Strategist | Problem selection | Quarterly |
| Customer Oracle | User behavior | Ongoing |
| Market Strategist | Positioning | Quarterly |
| Moonshot | Asymmetric upside | 1-5 years |

### Flow
1. CEO frames the decision
2. Board debates (sources required, no "I think")
3. Verifier checks facts (2+ sources per claim)
4. Executor creates execution plan
5. Tracker logs for quarterly review

---

## Lesson 4.11: UI Agents System

12 agents across 4 teams for brand-consistent UI generation:

```
Brand → Product → Tree → Branch → Leaf
```

Each level has its own `brand.yaml` with CSS custom properties. Zero hardcoded values. Agents generate Vue components that use only CSS custom properties from the brand config.

## Lab 4.12: Build an Agent Chain

**Objective**: Create a plan→build→review pipeline in YAML.

**Starter**: `course/labs/L4-agent-chain/starter.yaml`
**Solution**: `course/labs/L4-agent-chain/solution.yaml`

**Checkpoints**:
1. Planner produces structured plan with tasks and file paths
2. Builder creates code matching the plan
3. Reviewer identifies issues with severity (critical/major/minor)
4. Verifier confirms each claim with file:line evidence

## Lab 4.13: Deploy a Multi-Team System

**Objective**: Set up orchestrator + 2 teams with domain locking.

**Starter**: `course/labs/L4-multi-team/starter-config.yaml`
**Solution**: `course/labs/L4-multi-team/solution-config.yaml`

**Checkpoints**:
1. Orchestrator delegates, never executes
2. Each team has lead + members with distinct roles
3. Domain permissions restrict each agent to its scope
4. Mental model files exist for each agent