curiositech/wu-2023-autogen

AutoGen Multi-Agent Conversation Design

When to Use This Skill

Load this skill when facing:

• Coordination complexity where multiple LLMs, tools, or human experts need orchestration
• Rigid control flows using brittle state machines or hard-coded orchestration
• Monolithic agents handling validation, execution, safety, and domain expertise simultaneously
• Human-AI integration requiring smooth transitions between autonomous and collaborative modes
• Tasks needing iterative refinement, debugging, or progressive problem-solving

DECISION POINTS

Agent Topology Selection:

IF task has clear sequential stages
├─ THEN use static group chat with predefined speaker order
├─ SET termination condition based on final stage completion
└─ CONFIGURE each agent for specific stage responsibility

IF task complexity varies at runtime
├─ THEN use dynamic speaker selection
├─ IMPLEMENT speaker selection based on message content analysis
└─ ALLOW topology to adapt based on conversation context

IF validation/safety required
├─ THEN add adversarial critic/safeguard agents
├─ POSITION them to intercept before execution
└─ GIVE them veto power in conversation flow

IF human involvement varies
├─ THEN design human agents with configurable backends
├─ SUPPORT autonomous → supervised → collaborative modes
└─ MAINTAIN same conversational interface across modes

Failure Recovery Strategy:

IF one-shot generation fails repeatedly
├─ THEN add executor agent providing error feedback
├─ DESIGN conversation loop: attempt → error → refinement
└─ CAPTURE execution results as conversational messages

IF safety violations occur
├─ THEN implement safeguard agent with conversation veto
├─ POSITION before any execution or external communication
└─ ESCALATE violations as conversation messages requiring resolution

IF coordination breaks down
├─ THEN examine conversation history as execution trace
├─ IDENTIFY where message patterns deviated from expected
└─ ADJUST agent prompts or termination conditions, not orchestration code

FAILURE MODES

Monolithic Agent Syndrome

• Symptom: Single agent handling execution + validation + safety through complex prompts
• Detection: Agent prompts exceed 500 tokens or contain multiple "Also, make sure to..." clauses
• Fix: Decompose into specialized agents coordinating through conversation

Central Orchestrator Trap

• Symptom: Controller code that must understand every agent's internal capabilities
• Detection: Orchestration logic contains agent-specific conditionals or capability mapping
• Fix: Make agents conversable; let coordination emerge from message-passing patterns

Human-as-Special-Case

• Symptom: Separate code paths for human vs autonomous operation modes
• Detection: If/else branches checking for human participation before different execution flows
• Fix: Treat humans as agents with configurable backends using same conversational interface

Brittle Control Flow

• Symptom: Hard-coded conversation sequences breaking when requirements change
• Detection: Speaker order defined in code rather than conversation context or natural language rules
• Fix: Use dynamic speaker selection or natural language control flow specifications

Conversation History Blindness

• Symptom: Agents making decisions without sufficient conversation context
• Detection: Repeated questions about information already discussed or contradictory responses
• Fix: Configure conversation history visibility based on agent role and responsibility

WORKED EXAMPLES

Example 1: Code Generation with Validation

Scenario: Generate Python function with safety validation and execution testing

Novice Approach: Single agent with complex prompt handling generation + validation + execution Expert Approach: Three-agent conversation with specialized roles

Initial Setup:
- ProgrammerAgent: Generates code based on requirements
- CriticAgent: Reviews code for safety and correctness
- ExecutorAgent: Runs code and reports results

Conversation Flow:
1. Human: "Create a function to process user file uploads"
2. ProgrammerAgent: [Generates initial code with basic file handling]
3. CriticAgent: "Security concern: no input validation for file types or size limits"
4. ProgrammerAgent: [Revises with validation and size checks]
5. ExecutorAgent: "Code executed successfully. Test cases passed. No security violations detected."
6. TERMINATION: All agents confirm completion

Key Decision Points Navigated:
- Critic intercepted unsafe code before execution
- Executor provided concrete feedback enabling iterative refinement  
- Human stayed in loop without separate orchestration logic

Example 2: Dynamic Research Task

Scenario: Multi-step research requiring different expertise levels

Initial Message: "Analyze the impact of quantum computing on cryptocurrency security"

Agent Topology Decision:

• Complexity varies by subtopic → Use dynamic speaker selection
• Multiple domains required → Deploy specialized expert agents
• Human oversight needed → Include human agent with veto capability

Conversation Trace:

1. ResearchCoordinator: "Breaking this into quantum algorithms, cryptography, and economic impact"
2. QuantumExpert: [Detailed analysis of Shor's algorithm threat timeline]
3. CryptoExpert: "Post-quantum cryptography migration challenges: [technical details]"
4. EconomicAnalyst: [Market impact assessment]
5. Human: "Focus more on near-term practical implications"
6. ResearchCoordinator: [Adjusts research scope based on human feedback]
7. QuantumExpert: [Provides 5-10 year timeline analysis]
... [conversation continues with dynamic speaker selection based on expertise needs]

What Expert Catches vs Novice Misses:

• Expert: Recognizes when to shift speakers based on conversation content analysis
• Novice: Would try to pre-plan speaker order or use single "research agent"
• Expert: Sees human feedback as conversational input that naturally redirects agent focus
• Novice: Would implement separate human oversight as orchestration layer

QUALITY GATES

Task completion requires all conditions verified:

• [ ] Agent specialization: Each agent has single, clear responsibility (no agent handles >2 concerns)
• [ ] Conversation history: All agents receive appropriate conversation context for their role
• [ ] Termination signals: Clear, testable conditions for conversation completion defined
• [ ] Failure recovery: Error cases flow through conversation rather than breaking system
• [ ] Human integration: Human participation uses same interface as AI agents
• [ ] Message coherence: Each conversation turn advances toward task completion
• [ ] Role separation: Computation (agent responses) distinct from control flow (speaker selection)
• [ ] Feedback loops: Validation/correction cycles built into conversation pattern
• [ ] Scalability: Adding new agent capabilities doesn't require orchestration code changes
• [ ] State management: Conversation history serves as complete system state

NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES

Use different skills for:

• Single-agent tasks → Use llm-prompting or tool-integration skills instead
• Real-time systems requiring <100ms response → AutoGen conversation overhead too high
• Batch processing with no interactive requirements → Use workflow-orchestration instead
• Simple API integration → Use service-integration patterns instead
• Deterministic algorithms → Use traditional programming rather than conversation-based coordination

Delegate when:

• Task requires guaranteed deterministic outcomes → Use rule-based systems
• Conversation history would exceed token limits → Use memory-management skill for optimization
• Integration with existing workflow engines → Use system-integration skill for adapter patterns
• Performance optimization needed → Use distributed-systems skill for efficient coordination protocols