agent-teams
Agent Teams
Orchestrate collaborative agent teams using Claude Code's experimental agent teams feature.
When to Use
Is the work parallelizable with inter-agent communication needs?
├─ Single focused output? → Use a subagent (Task tool), not a team
├─ 2-3 independent outputs? → Use parallel subagents, not a team
├─ Parallel work + agents need to share findings? → USE A TEAM
├─ Competing hypotheses to test? → USE A TEAM
├─ Multi-file implementation with integration? → USE A TEAM
└─ Multi-lens review (security + perf + correctness)? → USE A TEAM
Don't use teams for: simple delegation, single-file work, sequential tasks, or anything a subagent handles fine.
The Process
Step 1: Assess the Task
Before spawning a team, answer:
- Can the work be split into 2-5 genuinely independent streams?
- Will agents need to communicate mid-task (not just return results)?
- Is there a clear integration point where results come together?
If any answer is "no", use subagents instead.
Step 2: Design the Team
Choose a pattern (see below) and define:
- Roles: What each teammate focuses on (be specific)
- File ownership: Which files each teammate can edit (CRITICAL — no overlaps)
- Deliverables: What each teammate produces
- Communication plan: When teammates should message vs. work independently
Step 3: Spawn with Context
Each teammate starts with zero context. Their spawn prompt must include:
- The overall goal and their specific role
- File paths they own (and must NOT touch)
- Expected deliverable format
- When to message the lead vs. work independently
Teammate tool → operation: "spawnTeam", team_name: "<descriptive-name>"
Task tool → team_name: "<name>", name: "<role>", subagent_type: "general-purpose"
Step 4: Coordinate
- Create tasks with TaskCreate before or after spawning
- Assign tasks with TaskUpdate (set
ownerto teammate name) - Use SendMessage
type: "message"for targeted communication - Avoid broadcast unless truly team-wide critical information
- Monitor progress via TaskList — don't poll teammates
Step 5: Integrate & Clean Up
- Review all teammate outputs
- Integrate results (you, the lead, handle merging)
- Send
shutdown_requestto each teammate - Call
Teammate cleanupto remove team resources - Commit the integrated work
Team Patterns
Research Team
When: Exploring a problem space, literature review, multi-angle analysis.
Composition (3-5 teammates):
| Role | Focus | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Literature Scout | Find relevant prior work | Annotated reference list |
| Methodology Analyst | Evaluate approaches | Pros/cons comparison table |
| Devil's Advocate | Challenge assumptions | Counter-arguments and risks |
| Synthesizer | Integrate findings | Unified recommendation |
See research-team-prompt.md for spawn template.
Implementation Team
When: Building a feature that spans multiple files/modules with clear boundaries.
Composition (2-4 teammates):
| Role | Focus | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Backend Dev | API routes, data layer | Working endpoints |
| Frontend Dev | UI components, state | Working interface |
| Test Writer | Test coverage | Passing test suite |
| Lead (you) | Integration, review | Merged feature |
Critical: Assign file ownership explicitly. No two teammates edit the same file.
See implementation-team-prompt.md for spawn template.
Debugging Team
When: Complex bug with multiple plausible root causes.
Composition (3-5 teammates):
| Role | Focus | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis A | Investigate theory A | Evidence for/against |
| Hypothesis B | Investigate theory B | Evidence for/against |
| Hypothesis C | Investigate theory C | Evidence for/against |
| Reproducer | Create minimal repro | Reproducible test case |
Teammates investigate concurrently. First to find strong evidence messages the team.
See debugging-team-prompt.md for spawn template.
Review Team
When: Thorough code review from multiple expert perspectives.
Composition (2-3 teammates):
| Role | Focus | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Security Reviewer | Vulnerabilities, auth, injection | Security findings |
| Performance Reviewer | Bottlenecks, complexity, caching | Performance findings |
| Correctness Reviewer | Logic errors, edge cases, types | Correctness findings |
All teammates read the same code but from different lenses. Read-only — no edits.
See review-team-prompt.md for spawn template.
Key Constraints
- One team per session — can't create a second team or nest teams
- File ownership is sacred — concurrent edits cause cascading Edit failures
- Clean up when done — orphaned teams waste resources
- Rich spawn prompts — teammates have zero prior context
- 2-5 teammates — more causes diminishing returns and coordination overhead
teammateMode: "auto"— uses tmux panes when available, in-process otherwise
Integration with Other Skills
- /brainstorming → Use before team spawning to clarify the approach
- /writing-plans → Create the plan, then use a team to execute it
- /finishing-a-development-branch → After team work, use to prepare for merge
- /subagent-driven-development → For independent tasks without communication needs (lighter weight)
More from yulonglin/dotfiles
anthropic-style
Anthropic visual style for plots, diagrams, slides, and web. Use when creating any visual output that should have Anthropic's look-and-feel — matplotlib charts, TikZ diagrams, HTML/CSS, or presentations.
29custom-compact
Compact current work with optional focus using agent-context-summariser
14commit
Commit current work with optional message. Handles git status/diff checking and message formatting.
12my-insights
Run custom usage analytics on all Claude Code sessions
12commit-push-sync
This skill should be used when the user asks to "commit and push", "commit push", "sync changes", "push changes", "commit and sync", or "update remote". Handles the full workflow of committing changes, pulling with rebase, and pushing to remote.
11merge-worktree
Merge current worktree branch into the original branch, resolve conflicts with AI, then mark worktree for cleanup
11