Toolkit

Multi-Agent Coordination · Pitfalls

On this page7 sections

Pitfalls

Designing for the Wrong Topology

Peer-message assumptions fail on coordinator-only products. State the required communication graph before choosing a feature.

Workers waiting on one another add cost without reducing elapsed time. Keep dependent steps sequential.

Agents can overwrite or invalidate each other's work. Allocate files, worktrees, and integration order.

Several agents can share the same wrong premise. Use independent evidence and deterministic checks, not vote count.

Recursive spawning hides cost and failure. Set active-worker, depth, retry, and time limits.

A failed coordinator can leave children running or changes uncollected. Define cancellation and recovery before launch.

Does the task graph contain real independence?
Does the product provide the topology the design requires?
Can every write be attributed and reconciled?
What happens when one worker stalls or the coordinator fails?
Did the team beat a single-AgentA worker you delegate to: brief it, and it takes steps on its own. A chatbot answers; an agent acts.An LLM that runs tools in a loop toward a goal — it acts, checks the result, decides the next step, and repeats until done.Full definition baseline on outcome, not spectacle?

Source register

Primary vendor documentation reviewed on the date shown. Links may change after publication.