multi-agent-architecture（多 Agent 架构）

Multi-Agent Architecture

Design principles for orchestrating many sub-agents without context overflow.

Core Philosophy

Treat agent design like human hiring: write a job description first, then translate to architecture. The framing shapes every decision.

The Job Description Method

Before writing any agent code:

1. Write a human JD — What would you want this person to do? What qualities? What indicates success?
2. Identify handoff points — Where would a human need to check in or escalate?
3. Define the onboarding — What handbook would you give a new hire?
4. Translate to agents — Each JD section becomes architecture

The Shared Folder Pattern

Problem: Orchestrator context overwhelmed when 10+ sub-agents return detailed reports simultaneously.

Solution: Sub-agents write to temp folder → downstream agents read directly.

.claude/workspace/
├── phase-1/
│   ├── gmail-analysis.md
│   ├── calendar-analysis.md
│   └── drive-inventory.md
├── phase-2/
│   ├── client-summary.md
│   └── action-items.md
└── manifest.yml

Workflow:

1. Orchestrator spawns sub-agents
2. Each sub-agent:
   - Does work
   - Writes report to .claude/workspace/{phase}/{name}.md
   - Returns only: { status: "complete", path: "..." }
3. Downstream agents read prior phase outputs directly
4. Orchestrator reads manifest, not full reports

Benefits:

• Orchestrator context stays minimal
• Sub-agents get full upstream context
• No signal loss from summarization relay

The Handbook Pattern

Problem: Many narrow skills create fragility and maintenance burden.

Solution: One handbook organized by chapters, read foundation + relevant sections.

skills/project-manager/
├── SKILL.md              # Entry point, routes to chapters
└── references/
    ├── 01-foundation.md  # Who we are, tools, escalation, standards
    ├── 02-daily-ops.md   # Data gathering procedures
    ├── 03-dashboards.md  # Structure, quality checks
    └── 04-onboarding.md  # New client setup

Chapter Structure:

Reading Pattern:

Sub-agent reads:
1. Foundation chapter (always)
2. Relevant domain chapter(s) (based on task)

Context Budget Strategies

Architecture Decision Tree

How many sub-agents?
├── 1-3 → Direct orchestration (return reports to main)
├── 4-10 → Shared folder pattern
└── 10+ → Phased execution with manifest

Do teammates need direct communication?
├── No → Sub-agents (Task tool) — report results back only
└── Yes → Agent Teams — shared task list, inter-agent messaging
    ├── See agent-teams skill for full guide
    └── Best for: parallel review, competing hypotheses, multi-module features

Do sub-agents need each other's output?
├── No → Parallel execution, merge results
└── Yes → Shared folder, dependency ordering

Is orchestrator context a concern?
├── No → Return full reports
└── Yes → Status-only returns + file paths

Anti-Patterns

Iteration Path

Most multi-agent systems evolve through:

1. Slash commands — Quick start, context limits emerge
2. Orchestrator + sub-agents — Solves context, creates relay bottleneck
3. Shared folder — Solves relay, reveals skill fragmentation
4. Handbook consolidation — Unified knowledge, maintainable

Skip earlier stages when building new systems.

Agent Teams

When workers need to communicate directly with each other — not just report back to an orchestrator — use Agent Teams instead of sub-agents. Agent Teams provide shared task lists, inter-agent messaging, and independent context windows.

Key differences from sub-agent patterns above:

• Teammates message each other directly (not just back to caller)
• Shared task list with self-claiming and dependency auto-unblock
• Each teammate is a full Claude Code session with own context

When to upgrade from sub-agents to Agent Teams:

• Sub-agents need to share findings mid-task
• You need adversarial debate or competing hypotheses
• 3+ workers need self-organizing coordination

For full setup, operations reference, and orchestration patterns, apply the agent-teams skill.