Multi Agent Coordination

---
license: Apache-2.0
name: multi-agent-coordination
description: |
  Coordinate multiple AI agents working on the same codebase or project simultaneously. Covers git worktree isolation, file locking strategies, message passing between agents, shared state management, conflict resolution, task decomposition for parallel agents, and patterns from Claude Code, Cursor, Devin, and similar multi-agent developer tools. Activate on: "multi-agent", "parallel agents", "agent coordination", "worktree isolation", "concurrent agents", "file locking agents", "agent conflict resolution", "swarming agents", "agent message passing", "parallel development", "agent orchestration", "ccswarm", "port daddy". NOT for: single-agent behavior patterns (use agentic-patterns), agent infrastructure selection (use agentic-infrastructure-2026), DAG topology design (use next-move).
allowed-tools: Read,Write,Edit,Bash,Glob,Grep,WebSearch,WebFetch
metadata:
  category: AI & Agents
  tags:
    - multi-agent
    - coordination
    - git-worktree
    - parallel
    - isolation
    - conflict-resolution
    - swarming
    - orchestration
  pairs-with:
    - skill: agentic-infrastructure-2026
      reason: Infrastructure layer that multi-agent coordination runs on top of
    - skill: always-on-agent-architecture
      reason: Always-on agents need coordination when running in parallel
    - skill: agentic-patterns
      reason: Individual agent patterns compose into multi-agent coordination
category: Agent & Orchestration
tags:
  - multi
  - agent
  - coordination
  - git
  - ai
  - dag
---

# Multi-Agent Coordination

You are an expert in coordinating multiple AI agents working simultaneously on shared codebases and projects. You understand git worktree isolation, file locking, message passing, shared state, and conflict resolution. The goal: multiple agents producing high-quality work in parallel without stepping on each other, with clean integration of their outputs.

---

## When to Use

**Use for:**
- Running multiple AI agents in parallel on the same repository
- Designing git worktree isolation strategies for agent sandboxing
- Building file locking and resource coordination systems
- Implementing message passing between concurrent agents
- Resolving merge conflicts from parallel agent work
- Decomposing tasks for optimal parallel agent execution
- Setting up Port Daddy or similar resource coordination

**Do NOT use for:**
- Single-agent behavior and tool use (use agentic-patterns)
- Choosing agent frameworks (use agentic-infrastructure-2026)
- Building DAG topologies (use next-move or windags-architect)
- Git basics or branching strategy (use git-best-practices)

---

## The Coordination Problem

When multiple agents work on the same codebase simultaneously, three things go wrong:

1. **File conflicts**: Two agents edit the same file, producing incompatible changes
2. **Resource contention**: Agents compete for ports, API quotas, build tools, test databases
3. **Semantic conflicts**: Agents produce individually correct changes that are collectively broken (e.g., Agent A renames a function, Agent B calls the old name)

The solution is a layered isolation strategy:

```
+-----------------------------------------------+
|          Coordination Layer                    |
|  (task decomposition, dependency awareness)    |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|          Isolation Layer                       |
|  (git worktrees, file locks, port claims)      |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|          Communication Layer                   |
|  (message passing, shared state, events)       |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|          Integration Layer                     |
|  (merge strategy, conflict resolution, tests)  |
+-----------------------------------------------+
```

---

## Git Worktree Isolation

The industry-standard pattern for multi-agent development. Each agent gets its own worktree -- same repo history, independent working tree.

### How It Works

```
main repo (.git)
  |
  +-- worktree-agent-1/  (branch: feat/auth-module)
  |     task: "implement OAuth login"
  |     files: independent working copy
  |
  +-- worktree-agent-2/  (branch: feat/api-tests)
  |     task: "write API integration tests"
  |     files: independent working copy
  |
  +-- worktree-agent-3/  (branch: feat/db-schema)
        task: "design user table migration"
        files: independent working copy
```

### Worktree Lifecycle

```bash
#!/bin/bash
# create-agent-worktree.sh

TASK_ID=$1
BRANCH_NAME="agent/${TASK_ID}"
WORKTREE_DIR="/tmp/agent-worktrees/${TASK_ID}"

# Create branch and worktree from current main
git branch "${BRANCH_NAME}" main
git worktree add "${WORKTREE_DIR}" "${BRANCH_NAME}"

echo "Agent worktree ready at ${WORKTREE_DIR}"
echo "Branch: ${BRANCH_NAME}"
```

```bash
#!/bin/bash
# cleanup-agent-worktree.sh

TASK_ID=$1
BRANCH_NAME="agent/${TASK_ID}"
WORKTREE_DIR="/tmp/agent-worktrees/${TASK_ID}"

# Remove worktree
git worktree remove "${WORKTREE_DIR}" --force

# Optionally delete branch after merge
# git branch -d "${BRANCH_NAME}"
```

### Worktree Integration Strategy

```
Phase 1: PARALLEL WORK
  Agent 1 ──work──> commit(s) on branch agent/task-1
  Agent 2 ──work──> commit(s) on branch agent/task-2
  Agent 3 ──work──> commit(s) on branch agent/task-3

Phase 2: SEQUENTIAL MERGE (order matters)
  main ← merge agent/task-1 (no conflicts, clean)
  main ← merge agent/task-2 (possible conflicts with task-1)
  main ← merge agent/task-3 (possible conflicts with task-1+2)

Phase 3: VALIDATION
  Run full test suite on merged main
  If tests fail → identify which merge caused it → fix or revert
```

### Merge Order Optimization

Merge in dependency order, not completion order:

1. Build dependency graph from agent task dependencies
2. Topological sort (dependencies merge first)
3. Within same dependency level, merge the agent with fewest file overlaps first (fewer conflicts)
4. Always run tests after each merge, not just at the end

---

## File Locking and Resource Coordination

### The Port Daddy Pattern

Port Daddy provides a coordination service for claiming shared resources (ports, files, locks) across agents:

```bash
# Agent registers itself
pd agent register --agent session-123 \
  --identity "project:auth-module" \
  --purpose "implementing OAuth login flow"

# Start a session
pd session start --purpose "OAuth implementation" --agent session-123

# Claim files (prevents other agents from editing them)
pd session files claim session-123 \
  src/auth/oauth.ts \
  src/auth/middleware.ts \
  src/routes/login.ts

# Claim a port for dev server
PORT=$(pd claim auth-service -q)

# Add notes for other agents to see
pd note "OAuth provider config needs GOOGLE_CLIENT_ID env var" \
  --type discovery

# Check for dead agent sessions and salvage their work
pd salvage --project myproject

# End session when done
pd session end session-123
```

### File-Level Locking Strategy

When formal tooling like Port Daddy is unavailable, implement a `FileCoordinator` with a `Map<string, FileLock>` where each lock records: path, agentId, claimedAt, purpose. Key operations:

1. **claim(agentId, paths[])**: Check all paths for existing locks by other agents. If conflicts exist, return them with a suggested resolution. Otherwise, claim all paths atomically.
2. **release(agentId)**: Release all locks held by the agent when its task completes or it crashes.
3. **Conflict suggestion**: If all conflicts are with one agent, suggest sequencing. If multiple agents, suggest splitting work to avoid the contested files.

---

## Task Decomposition for Parallel Agents

The quality of parallel agent work depends entirely on how you decompose the task.

### The Independence Principle

Maximize independence between agent tasks. The ideal decomposition has:
- **Zero file overlap**: Each agent touches different files
- **Clear interfaces**: Agents agree on function signatures / API contracts upfront
- **Unidirectional dependencies**: Agent B reads Agent A's output, not vice versa

### Decomposition Strategies

```
Strategy 1: BY MODULE (best for feature work)
+--------+  +--------+  +--------+
| Agent 1|  | Agent 2|  | Agent 3|
| Auth   |  | API    |  | UI     |
| Module |  | Routes |  | Pages  |
+--------+  +--------+  +--------+
     Zero file overlap, clean interfaces

Strategy 2: BY LAYER (best for cross-cutting changes)
+--------------------------------------+
| Agent 1: Schema/Types (runs first)   |
+--------------------------------------+
| Agent 2: Backend  | Agent 3: Frontend |
| (after Agent 1)   | (after Agent 1)   |
+--------------------------------------+
     Phase 1 defines contracts, Phase 2 implements in parallel

Strategy 3: BY CONCERN (best for quality/maintenance)
+--------+  +---------+  +--------+
| Agent 1|  | Agent 2 |  | Agent 3|
| Feature|  | Tests   |  | Docs   |
| Code   |  | for feat|  | for feat|
+--------+  +---------+  +--------+
     Feature agent leads, test/doc agents follow

Strategy 4: SCOUT + BUILDERS (best for unknown territory)
+-------------------------------------------+
| Scout Agent: Explore codebase, map files, |
| identify patterns, write plan             |
+-------------------------------------------+
          |  plan output  |
     +----v----+     +----v----+
     | Builder |     | Builder |
     | Agent 1 |     | Agent 2 |
     +---------+     +---------+
```

### The Task Coupling Matrix

Before assigning tasks to parallel agents, build the coupling matrix:

```
              Task A    Task B    Task C    Task D
Task A          -       HIGH      LOW       NONE
Task B        HIGH        -       LOW       NONE
Task C        LOW       LOW        -        HIGH
Task D        NONE      NONE     HIGH         -

Optimal grouping:
  Wave 1: [Task A + Task B] sequential, [Task C + Task D] sequential
  But A/B and C/D can run in parallel because NONE coupling between groups
```

| Coupling Level | File Overlap | Can Parallelize? | Strategy |
|---------------|-------------|-------------------|----------|
| NONE | 0 files shared | Yes, freely | Assign to separate agents |
| LOW | Config/types only | Yes, with contract | Define shared types first |
| HIGH | Core files shared | No | Sequence or merge carefully |
| CRITICAL | Same function | Never | Single agent only |

---

## Message Passing Between Agents

### Event Types

Agents communicate through four event types:

| Event | Purpose | Example |
|-------|---------|---------|
| `discovery` | Share findings that affect other agents | "User model uses soft-delete, not DELETE" |
| `completion` | Signal that work is done and branch is ready | "API types defined on branch agent/user-types" |
| `conflict` | Flag that two agents need the same resource | "Both need to modify src/auth/middleware.ts" |
| `request` | Ask another agent for something | "Need AuthMiddleware type exported before I can proceed" |

### The Shared Context Document

For simpler coordination, agents read/write a shared markdown document (e.g., `.windags/coordination.md`) with four sections: **Active Agents** (who, what task, status, files claimed), **Discoveries** (findings that affect other agents), **Contracts** (agreed function signatures / API interfaces), and **Blocked** (who is waiting on whom). Each agent reads this before starting and updates it as they work.

---

## Conflict Resolution

### Conflict Classification

| Conflict Type | Description | Resolution |
|--------------|-------------|------------|
| **Additive** | Both agents added different things to same file | Keep both, order logically |
| **Semantic** | Conflicting design decisions | Resolver agent evaluates both approaches |
| **Structural** | Same code modified differently (rename vs modify) | Escalate to human review |

### The Resolver Agent Pattern

When merge conflicts are too complex for heuristics, a dedicated resolver agent reviews:

```
Agent 1 output ──┐
                  ├──> Resolver Agent ──> Unified output
Agent 2 output ──┘         |
                           v
                    "Agent 1's auth middleware is correct,
                     but Agent 2's error handling is better.
                     Combining both with Agent 1's structure
                     and Agent 2's try/catch pattern."
```

---

## Real-World Multi-Agent Architectures

| Tool | Isolation | Coordination | Max Agents |
|------|-----------|-------------|------------|
| **Cursor 2.0** | Git worktrees per agent | Background agents, conflict detection | 8 |
| **Claude Code Task** | Isolated context per sub-agent | Parent/child, results summarized back | Unbounded |
| **ccswarm** | Git worktrees + Claude CLI | Template scaffolding, coordinator agent | Configurable |
| **WinDAGs** | ProcessExecutor / WorktreeExecutor | Wave-based (parallel within wave, serial across waves) | Per-wave |

---

## Resource Coordination Beyond Files

### Port Management

```bash
# Using Port Daddy for port coordination
PORT_AUTH=$(pd claim auth-service -q)      # Returns 3001
PORT_API=$(pd claim api-service -q)        # Returns 3002
PORT_DB=$(pd claim test-database -q)       # Returns 5433

# Agents use claimed ports, no collisions
AGENT_1_CMD="AUTH_PORT=${PORT_AUTH} npm run dev:auth"
AGENT_2_CMD="API_PORT=${PORT_API} npm run dev:api"
```

### Database Isolation

```bash
# Each agent gets its own test database
createdb "testdb_agent_${TASK_ID}"

# Run migrations in isolation
DATABASE_URL="postgres://localhost/${TASK_ID}" npx prisma migrate deploy

# Cleanup after agent finishes
dropdb "testdb_agent_${TASK_ID}"
```

### API Quota Coordination

Shared rate limiter across agents: maintain a global token budget, allocate fair shares per agent. When budget is low, each agent gets `remaining / activeAgentCount` tokens. Track per-agent usage to prevent any single agent from starving others.

---

## Anti-Patterns

### Anti-Pattern: Shared Working Directory
**What it looks like**: Multiple agents editing files in the same directory
**Why wrong**: Race conditions, overwritten changes, corrupted state
**Instead**: One worktree per agent, always.

### Anti-Pattern: Optimistic Concurrency Without Merge Strategy
**What it looks like**: "Just let them all work, we'll merge later"
**Why wrong**: Merge conflicts scale quadratically with agent count; 8 agents can produce dozens of conflicts
**Instead**: Decompose tasks to minimize file overlap. Build the coupling matrix first.

### Anti-Pattern: Coordinator Agent Bottleneck
**What it looks like**: One "manager" agent that reviews every decision from every worker agent
**Why wrong**: Serializes all work through one context window, negating parallelism
**Instead**: Coordinator sets contracts upfront, workers execute independently, coordinator reviews only at integration.

### Anti-Pattern: No Dead Agent Detection
**What it looks like**: Agent crashes mid-task, its files stay locked, its worktree sits abandoned
**Why wrong**: Other agents can't claim those files, work stalls
**Instead**: Heartbeat mechanism. If no activity for N minutes, salvage the session (`pd salvage`).

### Anti-Pattern: Ignoring Semantic Conflicts
**What it looks like**: All merges succeed (no git conflicts), but the code is broken
**Why wrong**: Git only detects textual conflicts, not logical ones (renamed function + caller of old name)
**Instead**: Run full test suite after every merge. Semantic conflicts show up as test failures.

---

## Quality Checklist

```
[ ] Task decomposition analyzed for file overlap (coupling matrix)
[ ] Each agent has isolated worktree or sandbox
[ ] File claims registered (Port Daddy or equivalent)
[ ] Resource coordination in place (ports, databases, API quotas)
[ ] Message passing mechanism defined (events, shared doc, or notes)
[ ] Merge order determined by dependency graph
[ ] Conflict resolution strategy chosen (automated + escalation)
[ ] Dead agent detection and salvage process in place
[ ] Full test suite runs after integration merge
[ ] Semantic conflict detection beyond textual merge
[ ] Coordination overhead measured (<20% of total agent time)
[ ] Rollback plan: can revert any single agent's contribution
```

---

**Core insight**: The hardest part of multi-agent coordination is not the git mechanics -- it is decomposing work so that agents are truly independent. Time spent on task decomposition and coupling analysis saves 10x the time you would spend resolving conflicts.

**Use with**: agentic-infrastructure-2026 (framework selection) | agentic-patterns (individual agent behavior) | always-on-agent-architecture (long-running coordinated agents)