Agent Team Builder

Design and execute a bespoke multi-agent team for any complex task. Always follow these four phases in order.

Phase 1: Task Intake

Ask the user the following (combine into one message, avoid multiple rounds of questioning):

Required:

• What is the task goal and any key constraints?
• What does "done well" look like? (success criteria)
• Tone, style, or audience if relevant

Quality gate preferences (for each major stage):

• Human approval: user reviews output and decides pass/loop
• Automated review: a dedicated critic agent decides pass/loop, user only sees final output
• Offer to configure per-stage during blueprint review

Use AskUserQuestion for structured intake where choices are discrete. Use free-text follow-up for open-ended requirements.

Phase 2: Team Design

After intake, design the agent team:

1. Decompose the task into 4–8 specialist roles. See references/team-patterns.md for role libraries by task category.
2. Define the workflow: sequential pipeline, parallel branches, or hybrid. Most tasks follow: Research → Plan → Execute → Review → Refine → Finalise.
3. Assign quality gates: at each handoff point, decide (based on user preferences) whether the gate is human or automated (critic agent).
4. Define loop conditions: what triggers a revision loop vs. passing the gate? Be explicit.
5. Name the team: short kebab-case slug (e.g. article-team, feature-team).

Phase 3: Blueprint Presentation

Present the team design for approval before spawning anything. Format:

## Team: [team-name]
**Goal:** [one sentence]

### Agents
| # | Role | Responsibility | Agent Type |
|---|------|---------------|------------|
| 1 | Researcher | ... | general-purpose |
| 2 | Planner | ... | general-purpose |
...

### Workflow
[Stage 1: Role → Role] → [GATE: human/automated] → [Stage 2: Role → Role] → ...

### Quality Gates
- Gate 1 (after [stage]): [human/automated] — passes when: [criterion]
- Gate 2 (after [stage]): [human/automated] — passes when: [criterion]

### Loop Conditions
- If Gate 1 fails: [specific revision instruction to agent N]
- Max iterations: [N] before escalating to user

Wait for explicit user approval. Offer to adjust roles, gates, or workflow before proceeding.

Phase 4: Execution

After approval, execute the team. See references/execution-guide.md for full tool syntax and patterns.

Execution sequence:

1. Create the team with TeamCreate
2. Create all tasks with TaskCreate (establish dependencies with addBlockedBy)
3. Spawn the orchestrator agent via the Task tool — this agent manages all other agents
4. The orchestrator: spawns worker agents, monitors task completion, enforces quality gates, routes revision loops, and shuts down the team when done

Orchestrator responsibilities (communicate clearly in its prompt):

• Spawn each worker agent in sequence/parallel per the approved workflow
• At each quality gate: run the gate (human via AskUserQuestion or automated via a critic Task)
• On gate failure: send revision instructions back to the relevant agent, increment loop counter
• On max iterations exceeded: surface the issue to the user and ask how to proceed
• On all gates passed: compile final output and deliver to user, then shut down team

Keep the user informed: After spawning, tell the user what's running and where to watch for gate approvals (if any are human-gated).

Key Principles

• Iterative by default: every pipeline should have at least one refinement loop
• Explicit gate criteria: vague gates (e.g. "good quality") cause infinite loops — make criteria specific and measurable
• Max iterations: always set a maximum (default: 3) to prevent runaway loops
• Fail loudly: if an agent produces unusable output, escalate to the user rather than silently looping
• Right-size the team: 4–6 agents is the sweet spot; more adds coordination overhead without quality gains