Why several agents
A model answering on its own tends to give an average answer, consistent with the question. A debate between agents with different roles — the sales director, the brand manager, the CFO — forces each position to measure itself against the others: trade-offs, objections and the points where a choice is needed all come to the surface.
Typical roles
- The experts — each with a perspective, goals and priorities.
- The moderator — decides who speaks, pushes the discussion forward, summarizes, wraps up.
- The judge — evaluates a result against stated criteria, without changing it.
- The producer — turns a decision into content, following the instructions it receives.
How to design one
1. Truly different roles
Experts who think alike produce a chorus, not a debate. Each role must have its own goals and criteria.
2. The same facts for everyone
The exchange only makes sense if everyone reasons on the same information base, with sources stated. Otherwise the debate becomes a clash of inventions.
3. A set number of rounds
A few rounds for a quick check, more rounds for a complex problem. Without a limit, the discussion goes in circles.
4. A final synthesis
The value lies in what remains: where the experts agree, where they don’t, and what is needed to decide.
When you don’t need it
For a question with a clear answer — a data point, a definition — a single model is enough and costs less. Multi-agent systems are useful when the question is strategic: it has several possible answers, and the choice depends on what you want to prioritize.
