Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://resources.devweekends.com/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
December 2025 Update: Production patterns for multi-agent orchestration including ReAct, hierarchical decomposition, and event-driven architectures.
Why Multi-Agent Systems?
Single agents have limitations:Pattern 1: ReAct (Reason + Act Loop)
The foundational pattern for autonomous agents:Implementation
Pattern 2: Hierarchical Task Decomposition
Break complex tasks into subtasks with specialized agents:Implementation
Pattern 3: Event-Driven Agents
Agents that respond to events and can run for extended periods:Implementation
Pattern 4: Debate and Consensus
Multiple agents debate to reach better conclusions:Pattern 5: Supervisor Pattern
A supervisor agent manages and monitors worker agents:Key Takeaways
ReAct for Autonomy
Use Reason+Act loops for agents that need to work independently
Hierarchy for Complexity
Break complex tasks into specialized subtasks
Events for Scale
Event-driven patterns for long-running, distributed systems
Debate for Quality
Multiple perspectives improve decision quality
What’s Next
Multimodal AI
Learn to build AI systems that work with vision, audio, and real-time voice
Interview Deep-Dive
Compare the ReAct pattern with hierarchical task decomposition. When would you choose one over the other for a production agent system?
Compare the ReAct pattern with hierarchical task decomposition. When would you choose one over the other for a production agent system?
Strong Answer:
- ReAct (Reason + Act) is a single-agent loop: the agent thinks about what to do, takes an action (calls a tool), observes the result, and repeats until the task is done. It is ideal for tasks that are inherently sequential and exploratory — where you do not know upfront what steps are needed. A research agent that searches the web, reads results, decides what to search next based on what it found, and iterates until it has a complete answer is a perfect ReAct use case. The agent discovers the plan as it executes.
- Hierarchical task decomposition is a multi-agent pattern where an orchestrator breaks a complex objective into subtasks, assigns each to a specialized agent, manages dependencies between subtasks, and synthesizes the results. It is ideal for tasks that can be planned upfront — where you know the general structure of the work even if you do not know the specifics. “Write a market analysis report” naturally decomposes into research, data analysis, and writing — three distinct phases with clear handoffs.
- The practical distinction is about predictability. If you can describe the workflow as a DAG (directed acyclic graph) of subtasks before execution starts, use hierarchical decomposition. If the workflow is reactive and depends on intermediate results, use ReAct. Many real systems use both: the orchestrator decomposes the high-level task into subtasks, and each subtask is executed by a ReAct agent that has its own tool set.
- The failure modes differ too. ReAct agents can get stuck in loops — repeatedly trying the same failing approach because the reasoning step is not sophisticated enough to learn from failure. I always set a maximum iteration count (typically 10-15) and build in explicit loop detection: if the last 3 actions were identical, force a different approach or escalate to a human. Hierarchical decomposition fails when the task decomposition is wrong — the orchestrator breaks the task into the wrong subtasks, or the dependencies are modeled incorrectly. The decomposition step itself is an LLM call, so it can hallucinate subtasks that do not make sense. I validate decompositions against a schema that enforces: each subtask must specify an agent type, each dependency must reference an existing subtask ID, and there must be no circular dependencies.
You are building a multi-agent system where agents need to communicate and share context. How do you design the communication layer?
You are building a multi-agent system where agents need to communicate and share context. How do you design the communication layer?
What are the failure modes of multi-agent systems that do not exist in single-agent systems, and how do you design for resilience?
What are the failure modes of multi-agent systems that do not exist in single-agent systems, and how do you design for resilience?
Strong Answer:
- The first unique failure mode is cascading failures. In a single-agent system, if the agent fails, the task fails. In a multi-agent system, if the research agent produces bad output (hallucinated facts), the analysis agent builds analysis on those hallucinated facts, and the writing agent produces a confident, well-written report full of nonsense. Each agent did its individual job well, but the system produced garbage because errors amplified through the pipeline. The mitigation is inter-agent validation: the analysis agent should not blindly trust the research agent’s output. I add a “quality gate” step between agents where a lightweight model checks for internal consistency, unsupported claims, and obvious errors before passing results forward.
- The second failure mode is coordination deadlock. Agent A is waiting for Agent B’s output, but Agent B is waiting for Agent A’s output due to a circular dependency. This is rare in well-designed systems but happens when the task decomposition step produces an invalid dependency graph. I enforce DAG validation on every decomposition and add a timeout on all inter-agent waits. If an agent has been waiting for more than 30 seconds, the orchestrator intervenes.
- The third failure mode is context drift. In a long-running multi-agent workflow, the accumulated context gradually diverges from the original objective. Each agent adds its own interpretation, and by agent 5, the system is solving a slightly different problem than what was asked. I mitigate this by including the original objective in every agent’s prompt, not just the orchestrator’s. Every agent sees “Original objective: X. Your specific task: Y.” This anchors each agent to the user’s intent.
- The fourth failure mode is cost explosion. A ReAct agent running inside a hierarchical system can enter a loop, consuming 50+ LLM calls before the iteration limit kicks in. Multiply that by 5 worker agents and a decomposition that produces 8 subtasks, and a single user request costs 0.50. I enforce per-request cost budgets: each worker gets a maximum token budget, and the orchestrator tracks cumulative spending. If the budget is 80% consumed, the remaining agents are forced to use cheaper models or shorter responses.
- The fifth and most subtle failure mode is inconsistency between agents. The research agent finds that Product X launched in 2023, but the writing agent (using its own knowledge) states it launched in 2024. Multi-agent systems can produce internally contradictory outputs because each agent has its own context and model instance. A final synthesis step that explicitly checks for contradictions across agent outputs catches most of these.