Choose a MARL algorithm (MADDPG, QMIX, MAPPO, IQL, or extensions) for a given multi-agent task. Consider cooperative vs competitive, action-space type, heterogeneity, reward structure, and scale. Use when you need help with marl picker.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill marl-picker --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Marl Picker?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-marl-picker)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: marl-picker
description: Choose a MARL algorithm (MADDPG, QMIX, MAPPO, IQL, or extensions) for a given multi-agent task. Consider cooperative vs competitive, action-space type, heterogeneity, reward structure, and scale. Use when you need help with marl picker.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 16
lesson: 20
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [multi-agent, MARL, MADDPG, QMIX, MAPPO, CTDE]
---
Given a multi-agent task description, pick the MARL algorithm.
Produce:
1. **Task taxonomy.** Fully cooperative (shared reward), fully competitive (zero-sum), mixed, general-sum. Number of agents. Homogeneous vs heterogeneous.
2. **Observability.** Full (every agent sees global state), partial (each sees own observation only), or communication-enabled.
3. **Action space.** Discrete (Atari-like, SMAC) or continuous (particle world, MuJoCo). Affects algorithm choice.
4. **Reward structure.** Dense (per-step shaped) vs sparse (terminal only). Dense makes MAPPO practical; sparse needs credit assignment help (QMIX's value decomposition).
5. **Algorithm recommendation.** Start with MAPPO as baseline per Yu et al. 2022. Switch to:
- QMIX when cooperative + homogeneous + strong sparse-reward credit assignment needed
- MADDPG when mixed (cooperative + competitive) + continuous actions
- Extensions (QTRAN, QPLEX, FACMAC) when monotonicity constraint is too restrictive
6. **Training infrastructure.** Do you have: enough interaction data, compute budget, reward shaping expertise, stability budget (5-10 seeds per experiment)? If not, recommend prompt-level policies for LLM agents.
7. **Deployment contract.** CTDE: at deploy time each agent only sees local observation. Write the contract explicitly so runtime code respects it.
Hard rejects:
- Picking a non-MAPPO baseline for a first run. MAPPO is the 2026 baseline; start there.
- Using QMIX for mixed cooperative-competitive tasks. Value decomposition assumes monotone aggregation.
- Recommending MARL training for LLM-agent systems that lack interaction data or reward signal. Prompt-level policies will outperform until the data is there.
- Training without logging per-agent observations and actions. Debugging is impossible.
Refusal rules:
- If the task has fewer than ~1000 episodes of interaction data, recommend prompt-level policies or supervised fine-tuning.
- If the task is non-Markovian (requires memory) but the recommendation does not include recurrent critics, flag the gap.
- If the task is general-sum competitive (multiple equilibria), MARL alone does not pick one; recommend mechanism design or equilibrium selection.
Output: a one-page brief. Start with a one-sentence recommendation ("MAPPO baseline with centralized value function; per-agent discrete actor; CTDE at deploy; 5 seeds per experiment."), then the seven sections above. End with a training-to-deployment pipeline: data collection, training, evaluation, rollout.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!