skills/agent-conversation-protocols/SKILL.md
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).
npx skillsauth add curiositech/windags-skills agent-conversation-protocolsInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
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.
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 | Use When | Example | |----------|------------|------------|----------|---------| | Star | Push | Round-robin | Clear leader coordinates work | CrewAI hierarchical process | | Star | Pull | Priority-queue | Workers request tasks when ready | AutoGen GroupChat with manager | | Mesh | Push | Free-form | Peer collaboration, no bottlenecks | Multi-agent debate | | Tree | Push | Depth-first | Hierarchical decomposition | Complex delegation chains | | Broadcast | Reactive | Event-driven | Knowledge sharing, updates | LangGraph state updates |
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
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
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
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
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
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
Problem: Design conversation protocol for 4-agent code review (author, security reviewer, performance reviewer, style reviewer)
Decision Process:
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:
Problem: 3 agents (researcher, writer, fact-checker) produce literature review
Decision Process:
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:
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
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
This skill covers conversation design, NOT:
agent-interchange-formatsagentic-infrastructure-2026agentic-patternsepisodic-memory-algorithmsagentic-infrastructure-2026Delegate to other skills when you encounter:
agent-interchange-formatsagentic-infrastructure-2026agentic-patternsepisodic-memory-algorithmsagentic-patternstools
Building resilient distributed systems with circuit breakers, retries with full-jitter exponential backoff, retry budgets (per-request 3-attempt + per-client 10% ratio per Google SRE), deadline propagation, and the cascading-failure math (4 layers × 3 retries = 64x amplification). Grounded in Resilience4j, Microsoft Cloud Patterns, AWS Architecture Blog (Marc Brooker), and Google SRE Book.
testing
Designing HTTP cache headers that work correctly across browsers, CDNs, and shared proxies — `Cache-Control` directives per RFC 9111, `stale-while-revalidate` and `stale-if-error` per RFC 5861, the Vary header for varying responses, and surrogate keys for tag-based purging. Grounded in IETF RFCs and Cloudflare/Fastly docs.
development
Use when designing or fixing a Content Security Policy on a real site, choosing between nonce-based and hash-based CSP, adding strict-dynamic, debugging "Refused to execute inline script" errors, deploying CSP in report-only mode first, configuring report-to / report-uri, or auditing an existing policy for unsafe-inline / unsafe-eval / wildcards. Triggers: "CSP blocks legitimate inline script", strict-dynamic, nonce-{RANDOM}, sha256-{HASH}, object-src none, base-uri none, frame-ancestors, Trusted Types, X-Content-Security-Policy obsolete, report-only vs enforced. NOT for general HTTP security headers (HSTS, COOP/COEP), Trusted Types deep dive, CORS configuration, or building a WAF.
tools
Choosing and operating an HTTP API versioning strategy that doesn't break clients — Stripe's date-based pinned versions, the Deprecation/Sunset header pair (RFC 9745 + RFC 8594), URI vs header vs media-type approaches, and the version-transformer pattern. Grounded in Stripe's published architecture and IETF RFCs.