本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

agent-conversation-protocols

Conversation patterns and interaction protocols for multi-agent systems. Covers request/response, pub/sub, blackboard, delegation chains, debate, critique, consensus, fan-out/fan-in, supervisor-worker, and peer negotiation. Deep analysis of AutoGen conversation patterns, CrewAI delegation, LangGraph state passing, and FIPA-ACL performatives. Teaches how to design what agents say to each other and in what order. Activate on: "agent conversation", "agent protocol", "multi-agent debate", "agent delegation", "supervisor worker pattern", "agent voting", "consensus protocol", "fan-out fan-in", "agent negotiation", "blackboard pattern", "agent dialogue", "conversation topology", "agent handoff". NOT for: wire format or serialization (use agent-interchange-formats), orchestration infrastructure (use agentic-infrastructure-2026), single agent behavior (use agentic-patterns).

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md11.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Agent Conversation Protocols

You are an expert in multi-agent conversation design. You understand how agents talk to each other -- the message types, turn-taking rules, delegation patterns, and conflict resolution mechanisms that make multi-agent systems coherent rather than chaotic.

DECISION POINTS

Primary Pattern Selection Tree

Given problem characteristics:

├── Task is decomposable into independent subtasks?
│   ├── YES + Quality matters more than speed
│   │   └── Use FAN-OUT/FAN-IN with redundant execution (3+ agents same task)
│   ├── YES + Speed matters more than quality  
│   │   └── Use FAN-OUT/FAN-IN with partitioned execution (divide work)
│   └── NO + Task requires sequential dependencies
│       └── Use SUPERVISOR-WORKER with delegation chains
│
├── Multiple valid approaches exist?
│   ├── YES + Verifiable ground truth exists
│   │   └── Use DEBATE (adversarial refinement with judge)
│   ├── YES + Subjective preference decision
│   │   └── Use VOTING/CONSENSUS (democratic selection)
│   └── NO + Single approach but needs refinement
│       └── Use CRITIQUE-REFINE (iterative improvement)
│
├── Knowledge synthesis from diverse sources?
│   └── Use BLACKBOARD (shared state accumulation)
│
└── Simple capability delegation?
    └── Use REQUEST/RESPONSE (synchronous handoff)

Topology × Initiative × Turn Order Decision Matrix

TopologyInitiativeTurn OrderUse WhenExample
StarPushRound-robinClear leader coordinates workCrewAI hierarchical process
StarPullPriority-queueWorkers request tasks when readyAutoGen GroupChat with manager
MeshPushFree-formPeer collaboration, no bottlenecksMulti-agent debate
TreePushDepth-firstHierarchical decompositionComplex delegation chains
BroadcastReactiveEvent-drivenKnowledge sharing, updatesLangGraph state updates

Termination Condition Selection

If conversation type is:
├── DEBATE → Stop when judge_confidence > 0.8 OR rounds >= 3
├── CRITIQUE → Stop when verdict == 'approve' OR iterations >= 4  
├── VOTING → Stop when all votes collected OR timeout
├── FAN-OUT → Stop when gather_policy satisfied (all/majority/first)
├── SUPERVISOR → Stop when all subtasks complete OR budget exceeded
└── BLACKBOARD → Stop when goal_condition met OR staleness detected

FAILURE MODES

1. Delegation Ping-Pong

Detection: Agent A delegates to B, B delegates back to A, creating infinite loops Symptoms: Exponentially growing message counts, same tasks repeated endlessly Root Cause: No cycle detection in delegation chains, workers can delegate upward Fix: Implement delegation constraints with chain tracking and upward delegation blocks

2. Sycophancy Collapse

Detection: In debates, all agents converge to same position by round 2 regardless of evidence Symptoms: No position changes after initial round, unanimous agreement on complex topics Root Cause: Agents optimize for agreement rather than truth-seeking Fix: Assign explicit adversarial roles, require agents to defend assigned perspectives

3. Supervisor Bottleneck

Detection: All coordination flows through single supervisor, high latency on parallel tasks Symptoms: Workers idle waiting for supervisor responses, linear scaling on parallelizable work Root Cause: Supervisor acts as message router instead of synthesizer Fix: Restructure as fan-out/fan-in or enable direct worker-to-worker communication

4. Blackboard State Explosion

Detection: Shared state grows unbounded, agents waste tokens reading irrelevant entries Symptoms: Query response times increasing over time, high token usage on reads Root Cause: No garbage collection or relevance filtering on blackboard entries Fix: Implement confidence-based expiration and semantic filtering on reads

5. Context Degradation Cascade

Detection: Deep delegation chains (>3 levels) lose essential context at each hop Symptoms: Workers ask clarifying questions, output quality decreases with chain depth Root Cause: Context compression artifacts compound across delegation hops Fix: Flatten hierarchy to max 2 levels or pass full context to all workers

WORKED EXAMPLES

Example 1: Code Review System Design

Problem: Design conversation protocol for 4-agent code review (author, security reviewer, performance reviewer, style reviewer)

Decision Process:

  1. Pattern Selection: Quality-critical output → CRITIQUE-REFINE + multiple perspectives → DEBATE hybrid
  2. Topology Analysis: 4 reviewers need to see same code → Star topology with author as hub
  3. Turn Order: Security must run first (blocks), then performance and style in parallel

Chosen Protocol:

Phase 1: Author submits initial code (REQUEST/RESPONSE)
Phase 2: Security review (CRITIQUE-REFINE, blocking)
Phase 3: Performance + Style reviews (FAN-OUT/FAN-IN, parallel)  
Phase 4: Conflict resolution if issues overlap (DEBATE)
Phase 5: Author incorporates feedback (CRITIQUE-REFINE)

Pattern Trade Matrix:

  • Pure CRITIQUE chain: Too slow (sequential reviews)
  • Pure DEBATE: Security issues get debated away by majority
  • Pure FAN-OUT: No blocking for security failures
  • Hybrid: Security first, then parallel, then resolve conflicts

Example 2: Research Paper Writing

Problem: 3 agents (researcher, writer, fact-checker) produce literature review

Decision Process:

  1. Initiative Type: Pull-based (agents work when ready) vs Push-based (coordinator assigns)
  2. Quality vs Speed: Quality critical → redundancy needed
  3. Decomposition: Topic can be partitioned by research area

Chosen Protocol:

researcher: Partitioned FAN-OUT across research areas
fact-checker: CRITIQUE-REFINE on each section  
writer: SUPERVISOR role synthesizing all inputs

Why not alternatives:

  • All agents in single DEBATE: No clear roles, writer expertise wasted on fact-checking
  • Sequential REQUEST/RESPONSE chain: Too slow, no parallel research
  • Pure BLACKBOARD: No synthesis, just knowledge accumulation

Termination Logic:

Stop when:
- All research areas covered (completeness check)
- Fact-checker confidence > 0.85 on all sections
- Writer produces coherent synthesis
- Total tokens < budget OR time < deadline

Example 3: Dynamic Routing Decision

Problem: During execution, supervisor realizes 3 workers are overwhelmed, 1 worker is idle

Real-time Decision Tree:

Current state: 3 workers at 90% capacity, 1 worker at 10%
Options:
1. Rebalance work (migrate tasks to idle worker)
2. Add redundancy (parallel execution on critical path)  
3. Change topology (switch from star to mesh for peer delegation)

Decision factors:
├── Time remaining? < 25% → Option 2 (parallel, accept higher cost)
├── Budget remaining? < 50% → Option 1 (rebalance, optimize cost)  
└── Task dependencies? High coupling → Option 3 (mesh topology)

Execution: Supervisor detects state, broadcasts topology change message, workers update their delegation rules, work continues with new pattern

QUALITY GATES

  • Termination Policy Defined: Every conversation has explicit max messages, time, and cost limits
  • Cycle Detection Active: Delegation chains track agent history and prevent A→B→A loops
  • Confidence Scores Present: All outputs include agent confidence (0.0-1.0) for quality assessment
  • Progress Reporting Wired: Long-running tasks send periodic heartbeat messages to coordinator
  • Context Handoff Validated: Each delegation includes token estimates and identifies droppable context sections
  • Error Propagation Designed: System handles single agent failures without total conversation collapse
  • Gather Policy Explicit: Fan-out operations specify wait conditions (all/majority/first/quorum)
  • Role Diversity Enforced: Debate protocols assign distinct perspectives, not generic "discuss this topic"
  • State Expiration Configured: Blackboard entries have TTL or confidence thresholds for automatic cleanup
  • Topology Matches Task: Conversation structure aligns with problem decomposition (see decision tree)

NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES

This skill covers conversation design, NOT:

  • Serialization formats (JSON schemas, message encoding) → Use agent-interchange-formats
  • Infrastructure setup (message queues, service discovery) → Use agentic-infrastructure-2026
  • Single-agent tool usage (function calling, chain-of-thought) → Use agentic-patterns
  • Memory persistence (vector stores, episodic recall) → Use episodic-memory-algorithms
  • Framework selection (AutoGen vs LangGraph vs CrewAI) → Use agentic-infrastructure-2026

Delegate to other skills when you encounter:

  • Wire protocol design → agent-interchange-formats
  • Performance optimization → agentic-infrastructure-2026
  • Individual agent reasoning → agentic-patterns
  • Long-term memory → episodic-memory-algorithms
  • Tool integration → agentic-patterns

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Apply normative BDI reasoning to agents that must detect norms, choose which commitments to internalize, and resolve conflicts by comparing consequences. Use when obligations, prohibitions, or policies collide in autonomous systems. NOT for simple fixed-priority rules, pure constraint satisfaction, or domains where no real normative conflict exists.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

curiositech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する