Coordinate multiple AI agents during development sprints with consistent task requests and completion reports. Define separate work areas, share API agreements, and collect implementation and testing results so the project architect can review progress and decide next steps.
Execute this skill should be used when the user asks about "SPAWN REQUEST format", "agent reports", "agent coordination", "parallel agents", "report format", "agent communication", or needs to understand how agents coordinate within the sprint system. Use when appropriate context detected. Trigger with relevant phrases based on skill purpose.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Agent Patterns defines the coordination protocol for multi-agent sprint execution within the Sprint plugin. It governs how the project architect spawns implementation and testing agents, how agents communicate results via structured reports, and how parallel agents avoid conflicts.
/plugin install sprint).claude/sprint/[N]/specs.md written with clear scope and testing configurationsprint-workflow skill)Structure every agent spawn using the SPAWN REQUEST format. Include the agent name, the specification file it should read, and any scope constraints:
SPAWN REQUEST
Agent: python-dev
Specs: .claude/sprint/1/backend-specs.md
Contract: .claude/sprint/1/api-contract.md
Scope: Authentication endpoints only
Ensure each spawned agent receives only the files relevant to its scope. Pass the api-contract.md as a shared interface so backend and frontend agents stay synchronized.
Collect structured reports from every agent upon completion. Each report must include: work completed, files modified, tests added, and conformity status against the specification.
When running agents in parallel, partition work by domain boundary (e.g., backend vs. frontend vs. CI/CD). Never assign overlapping file paths to concurrent agents.
Feed agent reports back to the project architect for review. The architect decides whether to iterate (re-spawn with narrowed specs) or advance to the next phase.
For testing agents, pass the UI test report format shown in ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/ui-test-report.md so results follow a consistent schema including test counts, coverage, failures, and console errors.
status.md reflecting completed and remaining work after each iteration| Error | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Agent receives wrong specification file | Incorrect path in SPAWN REQUEST | Verify the sprint directory number and file name before spawning |
| Overlapping file modifications from parallel agents | Scope boundaries not clearly defined | Partition work by domain; assign distinct directories to each agent |
| Agent report missing required fields | Agent instructions lack report format | Include the structured report template in the agent prompt |
| Infinite iteration loop | Specs never fully satisfied | Check status.md for blocking issues; the orchestrator pauses after 5 iterations |
| Agent not found | Misspelled agent name in SPAWN REQUEST | Verify agent markdown files exist in agents/ directory |
Spawning parallel implementation agents:
SPAWN REQUEST
Agent: python-dev
Specs: .claude/sprint/1/backend-specs.md
Contract: .claude/sprint/1/api-contract.md
SPAWN REQUEST
Agent: nextjs-dev
Specs: .claude/sprint/1/frontend-specs.md
Contract: .claude/sprint/1/api-contract.md
Both agents share the same api-contract.md to ensure API compatibility.
Structured agent report format:
AGENT REPORT
Agent: python-dev
Status: COMPLETE
Files Modified: src/auth/routes.py, src/auth/models.py, tests/test_auth.py
Tests: 12 passed, 0 failed
Conformity: All backend-specs requirements implemented
Notes: JWT token expiry set to 24h per spec
Testing agent coordination:
SPAWN REQUEST
Agent: qa-test-agent
Specs: .claude/sprint/1/specs.md
Run After: python-dev, nextjs-dev
SPAWN REQUEST
Agent: ui-test-agent
Specs: .claude/sprint/1/specs.md
Run After: qa-test-agent
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/ui-test-report.md -- Structured UI test report format with coverage and failure trackingNo reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Add a synthetic-data CI gate for customer-owned Abridge integration code. Test consent handling, note-review handoffs, redaction, and rollback behavior with mocked vendor boundaries, without connecting CI to a live Abridge or EHR tenant.
Triage Abridge recording, note review, Epic handoff, and access problems using observed symptoms and approved guidance. Identify the affected workflow stage, organize a minimal timeline, and prepare a redacted escalation record for the responsible team.
Map and review an Abridge clinical documentation workflow from consent and recording through draft review, evidence checks, edits, and final disposition. Keep clinician approval explicit, identify failure exits, and separate verified facts from tenant-specific details and pending approvals.
Audit how clinician-reviewed Abridge note sections map into Epic templates and downstream workflows. Use approved test records to document destinations, exceptions, evidence, rollback steps, and a go or no-go decision for a specific environment.
Review Abridge adoption and workflow value using local usage records, clinician feedback, and verified contract costs. Build an evidence based decision table covering adoption, quality, support burden, and options to expand, hold, or improve the rollout.
Prepare a bounded support bundle for an Abridge issue using allowlisted operational details such as versions, coarse timestamps, and correlation references. Exclude recordings, transcripts, patient identifiers, credentials, and unrestricted logs, then document redactions and review details.