Contact

Multi-Agent Systems: Orchestration, Coordination, and Role Design

How to design, deploy, and govern multi-agent architectures that scale intelligently and perform reliably.

Introduction: Why Multi-Agent Systems Are the Next Step in Applied AI

Most organisations begin their AI journey with single-agent systems: automated assistants that handle tasks such as research, content generation, analysis, customer support flows, or internal tooling. But as soon as workloads increase in complexity, a single agent can become a bottleneck — limited by its context window, toolset, or ability to plan across multiple domains.

This is where multi-agent systems (MAS) become transformative.

Instead of relying on one generalist agent, MAS architectures coordinate multiple specialised agents — each with discrete goals, capabilities, and strengths. They communicate through structured messages, hand off tasks, critique each other’s outputs, and negotiate solutions, much like high-performing human teams.

The result is a scalable, resilient, and more reliable AI system that mirrors the structure of mature operational processes.

This page covers:

  • When multi-agent beats single-agent

  • The core roles: coordinator, critic, executor, researcher, planner

  • Arbitration and conflict resolution patterns

  • Task graphs and workflow decomposition

  • Messaging buses and communication contracts

  • Shared memory and knowledge graphs

  • Negotiation and decision-making strategies

  • Evaluation suites for analysing multi-agent performance

  • Governance, guardrails, and safe routing

By the end, you’ll understand not just the theory of multi-agent systems — but exactly how to design production-ready architectures that support your organisation’s automation strategy.

1. When Multi-Agent Beats Single-Agent: Choosing the Right Architecture

A single agent is often sufficient for:

  • Simple or linear workflows

  • Tasks with minimal context switching

  • Processes requiring consistent tone or decision style

  • Basic tool use (e.g., one API, one database)

But performance falls off when tasks become:

1.1. Multi-step and branching

Complex processes (e.g., contract analysis, full-stack marketing workflows, engineering discovery) involve branching logic and multiple “modes” of thinking. A single agent struggles to keep track of all requirements simultaneously.

1.2. Multi-disciplinary

An agent that’s excellent at analytics might produce weak creative outputs. A persuasive writing agent might not understand technical documentation. Specialisation improves quality.

1.3. High-stakes or high-confidence

Critical outputs benefit from multi-agent checks:

  • Reviewer agents

  • Safety or compliance agents

  • Fact-checking agents

  • Red-teaming or hallucination detection agents

1.4. Large context requirements

Instead of stuffing everything into a single prompt (which leads to cost and latency), MAS architectures break the load intelligently across specialised workers using shared memory stores.

1.5. Structured collaboration and arbitration

If a workflow needs:

  • quality assurance

  • conflict resolution

  • cost trimming

  • tool routing

  • domain expertise

…multiple agents consistently outperform a single generalist.

Conclusion:
Use single-agent for speed and simplicity.
Use multi-agent for quality, scalability, and complexity management.

2. Core Multi-Agent Roles: Coordinator, Critic, Executor and Beyond

Multi-agent systems aren’t just “more agents” — they’re more structured.

Below are the foundational roles that appear in most enterprise-grade agentic architectures.

2.1. The Coordinator (Orchestrator)

The coordinator acts as the “project manager” of the system.

Responsibilities:

  • Interprets the user/system goal

  • Decomposes tasks into subtasks

  • Assigns tasks to appropriate agents

  • Collects outputs and decides next steps

  • Handles arbitration when agents disagree

  • Ensures the workflow stays on track

Patterns:

  • Plan → Execute → Review

  • Planner / Executor split

  • Hierarchical Task Networks (HTN)

Academic relevance:

  • Similar to architectures in the classic Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning (HRL) literature (e.g., Barto & Mahadevan, 2003).

2.2. The Executor (Worker)

Executors are specialists:

  • Researcher

  • Coder

  • Content generator

  • Data analyst

  • Sales writer

  • UX reviewer

  • Ads strategist

  • Compliance checker

Executors follow structured instructions via strict function-calling contracts to keep their actions predictable.

2.3. The Critic (Reviewer/Evaluator)

Critics increase reliability by checking:

  • Accuracy

  • Safety

  • Relevance

  • Performance

  • Tone

  • Consistency with brand or strategic goals

Critics can score outputs using rubrics and return revision requests. This mirrors techniques from the ReAct and Evaluator Models research (Google DeepMind, 2023).

2.4. The Router (Dispatcher)

Routers decide which agent should act next based on:

  • Input classification

  • Tool availability

  • Memory state

  • Business rules

  • Cost/performance constraints

Routing is essential for cost control and avoiding unnecessary agent cycles.

2.5. The Governor (Safety & Compliance)

A specialised role that enforces:

  • Policy constraints

  • Regulatory rules

  • Harm detection

  • PII protection

  • Brand or legal guidelines

3. Arbitration, Hand-Offs, and Conflict Resolution

When multiple agents have opinions, conflicts occur. Good architectures define how disputes are solved.

3.1. Arbitration Models

  • Coordinator-decides — the simplest pattern

  • Weighted voting — useful when agents have different confidence calibration

  • Critic-mediated arbitration — a neutral arbiter evaluates competing outputs

  • Chain-of-thought comparison — comparing reasoning traces

3.2. Hand-off Patterns

  • Sequential hand-offs — A → B → C

  • Parallel with merging — A + B → Critic

  • Conditional hand-offs — If safety triggers → Safety Agent

3.3. Negotiation Between Agents

Inspired by multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) literature (e.g., Lowe et al., 2017), agents may:

  • Propose solutions

  • Critique each other

  • Converge on a final answer

This is especially valuable in design tasks, research, and strategy generation.

4. Designing Task Graphs: The Blueprint of Multi-Agent Workflows

Task graphs make MAS architectures predictable, testable, and scalable.

A task graph defines:

  • The nodes (tasks)

  • The edges (dependencies)

  • The roles assigned

  • The inputs and outputs

  • The evaluation criteria

This is similar to DAGs (Directed Acyclic Graphs) used in data engineering tools like Apache Airflow — except here, nodes contain agent logic rather than Python operators.

4.1. Benefits of Task Graphs

  • Clear orchestration

  • Easy debugging

  • Less hallucination drift

  • Observable decision paths

  • Enables partial re-runs (cost saving)

4.2. Example Graph

 
Goal ├── Research Task → Research Agent ├── Synthesis Task → Coordinator ├── Draft Creation → Writer Agent ├── Compliance Review → Safety Agent └── Final QA → Critic Agent

5. Messaging Buses and Communication Patterns

Agents communicate via structured messaging. The communication layer defines:

5.1. Message Types

  • Instructions

  • Summaries

  • Critiques

  • Data payloads

  • Tool requests

  • Results

  • Memory updates

5.2. Communication Buses

  • Centralised message bus — coordinator receives all messages

  • Peer-to-peer — agents talk directly (useful for negotiation)

  • Hybrid — coordinator manages workflow, workers negotiate independently

5.3. Schema Design

Messages must be:

  • Structured

  • Typed

  • Validated

  • Logged

Use JSON schemas or OpenAI tool definitions for consistency.

6. Shared Memory: The Institutional Knowledge of Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent systems need persistent memory for:

  • Facts

  • Context

  • Long-running projects

  • User preferences

  • Brand style or strategy

  • Company-specific data models

Memory types include:

6.1. Short-Term Memory (STM)

Stored in current context windows. Best for ongoing reasoning.

6.2. Long-Term Memory (LTM)

Stored in databases, vector stores, or knowledge graphs.
Agents can retrieve facts through embeddings or symbolic queries.

6.3. Episodic Memory

Logs of previous tasks; useful for auditing.

6.4. Procedural Memory

Stored processes and workflows.

Important:
Memory access must be governed with role-based restrictions to prevent unchecked propagation or data leakage.

7. Negotiation Strategies for Multi-Agent Decision Making

Borrowing from MARL and game-theory research, negotiation strategies include:

7.1. Self-Critique Cycles

Agents self-evaluate before passing work to others.

7.2. Debate Format

Two agents argue opposing viewpoints; a critic decides. Inspired by OpenAI’s “AI debate” research.

7.3. Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL)

Agents learn policies through shared or competing reward signals.

7.4. Auction Mechanisms

Useful for dynamic resource allocation.

8. Evaluation Suites for Multi-Agent Teams

You cannot trust MAS systems without testing them extensively.

Evaluation should cover:

8.1. Task Success Rate

Did the team solve the problem?

8.2. Hand-off Efficiency

Too many cycles = high costs.

8.3. Quality Metrics

Accuracy, compliance, tone, consistency.

8.4. Speed and Latency

Measure hops, cycles, and queue times.

8.5. Safety Metrics

Compliance violations, hallucination frequency, unsafe tool usage.

8.6. Cost-per-task

Key for production systems.

Academic frameworks you can draw from include:

  • Google DeepMind’s DIAL / MADDPG

  • OpenAI’s Self-Critique and Reflection methodologies

  • Stanford’s HELM evaluation benchmarks

  • Anthropic’s Critique-and-Revise model evaluations

9. Governance, Guardrails, and Observability for Multi-Agent Systems

MAS architectures amplify risk if not governed properly.

9.1. Guardrails

Include:

  • Tool-use constraints

  • Role-specific policies

  • Routing restrictions

  • Memory write permissions

  • Compliance filters

Use policy engines (e.g., structured safety prompts, regex filters, or custom rule engines).

9.2. Observability

Log:

  • Agent messages

  • Tool calls

  • Hand-offs

  • Reasoning traces

  • Arbitration decisions

  • Memory reads/writes

This supports:

  • Debugging

  • Auditing

  • Regulatory compliance

  • Post-incident analysis

9.3. Red-Teaming

Simulate:

  • Adversarial inputs

  • Unexpected user behaviour

  • Tool misuse

  • Safety failures

This step is mandatory for enterprise deployments.

Conclusion: Multi-Agent Systems Are the Future of Scalable AI

Multi-agent systems represent the most mature, flexible, and scalable way to deploy agentic AI in real organisations.

They provide:

  • Higher quality outputs

  • Systematic error reduction

  • Parallelisation

  • Specialisation

  • Increased safety

  • Better observability

  • More reliable automation outcomes

As AI becomes deeply embedded in business operations, multi-agent orchestration will be a core pillar of AI strategy — enabling companies to scale processes, improve decision-making, and ensure safe, controlled automation.

Whether you’re building internal tools, customer-facing AI, or sophisticated automation backbones, multi-agent architectures offer the most robust path to production-ready AI.

Book a Consultation

Frequently Asked Questions About Multi-Agent Systems

What is a multi-agent system in AI?

A multi-agent system is an AI setup where several specialised agents work together to achieve a goal. Instead of relying on one general-purpose assistant, you design multiple agents with different roles—such as coordinator, critic, and executor—that communicate, hand off tasks, and cross-check each other’s outputs. This improves quality, scalability, and reliability for complex workflows.

When does a multi-agent system outperform a single-agent system?

Multi-agent systems usually outperform single-agent systems when your workflows are complex, multi-step, or multi-disciplinary. They are especially effective when you need different skills, multiple tools, or extra checks—such as research, coding, compliance reviews, and strategic planning. By distributing work across specialised agents, you get higher quality, better observability, and fewer errors than with a single generalist agent.

What are the key roles in a multi-agent architecture?

The key roles in multi-agent architectures typically include:

  • Coordinator (orchestrator) – plans the work, decomposes tasks, and routes them to the right agent.
  • Executor agents – perform specialised tasks, such as research, analysis, or content generation.
  • Critic (reviewer) agents – check outputs for quality, safety, and alignment with brand or policy.
  • Router agents – decide which agent should act next based on input type, tools, and business rules.
  • Governor agents – enforce compliance, safety policies, and regulatory constraints.

 

These roles mirror how high-performing human teams share responsibilities.

How do agents communicate and hand off tasks?

Agents communicate through a structured messaging layer, sometimes called a messaging bus. Messages usually include instructions, results, critiques, and memory updates in a consistent JSON-style schema. The coordinator uses these messages to pass tasks between agents—either sequentially, in parallel with later merging, or conditionally based on rules and evaluation results.

What is shared memory in a multi-agent system?

Shared memory is the storage layer that multiple agents can read from and write to. It holds facts, user preferences, business context, and previous decisions so that agents work from the same up-to-date information. Shared memory might include short-term context, long-term knowledge bases, and episodic logs of previous interactions. Access is controlled with roles and permissions to prevent data leakage or unsafe behaviour.

How do you evaluate a team of AI agents?

To evaluate a team of AI agents, you test entire workflows rather than just individual prompts. Helpful metrics include:

  • Task success rate – whether the team actually solves the problem.
  • Hand-off efficiency – how many cycles or hops are required.
  • Quality metrics – accuracy, tone, compliance, and consistency.
  • Latency – how long it takes to produce a result.
  • Cost-per-task – total token and tool cost per completed workflow.
  • Safety metrics – policy violations, hallucinations, or unsafe tool us

 

These metrics feed into iteration on orchestration logic, role design, and guardrails.

What risks come with multi-agent systems and how can they be managed?

Multi-agent systems amplify both benefits and risks. Without strong governance they can loop endlessly, misuse tools, or produce outputs that are inconsistent or non-compliant. You can manage these risks by:

  • Setting clear guardrails and role-based permissions.
  • Using dedicated safety and compliance agents.
  • Logging all messages, hand-offs, and tool calls for observability.
  • Running structured red-teaming to probe for failure modes before production.
  • Regularly reviewing evaluation data and updating orchestration logic.

 

With the right guardrails, multi-agent systems become a powerful, controllable layer in your AI strategy rather than an unpredictable black box.

Book a Consultation