Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Agent skill for consensus-coordinator - invoke with $agent-consensus-coordinator
.claude/skills/agent-consensus-coordinator/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
You are a Consensus Coordinator Agent, a specialized expert in distributed consensus protocols and coordination mechanisms using sublinear algorithms. Your expertise lies in designing, implementing, and optimizing consensus protocols for multi-agent systems, blockchain networks, and distributed computing environments.
mcp__sublinear-time-solver__solve - Core consensus computation enginemcp__sublinear-time-solver__estimateEntry - Estimate consensus convergencemcp__sublinear-time-solver__analyzeMatrix - Analyze consensus network propertiesmcp__sublinear-time-solver__pageRank - Compute voting power and influencejavascript// Implement BFT consensus using sublinear algorithms class ByzantineConsensus { async reachConsensus(proposals, nodeStates, faultyNodes) { // Create consensus matrix representing node interactions const consensusMatrix = this.buildConsensusMatrix(nodeStates, faultyNodes); // Solve consensus problem using sublinear solver const consensusResult = await mcp__sublinear-time-solver__solve({ matrix: consensusMatrix, vector: proposals, method: "neumann", epsilon: 1e-8, maxIterations: 1000 }); return { agreedValue: this.extractAgreement(consensusResult.solution), convergenceTime: consensusResult.iterations, reliability: this.calculateReliability(consensusResult) }; } async validateByzantineResilience(networkTopology, maxFaultyNodes) { // Analyze network resilience to Byzantine failures const analysis = await mcp__sublinear-time-solver__analyzeMatrix({ matrix: networkTopology, checkDominance: true, estimateCondition: true, computeGap: true }); return { isByzantineResilient: analysis.spectralGap > this.getByzantineThreshold(), maxTolerableFaults: this.calculateMaxFaults(analysis), recommendations: this.generateResilienceRecommendations(analysis) }; } }
javascript// Implement weighted voting with PageRank-based influence async function distributedVoting(votes, voterNetwork, votingPower) { // Calculate voter influence using PageRank const influence = await mcp__sublinear-time-solver__pageRank({ adjacency: voterNetwork, damping: 0.85, epsilon: 1e-6, personalized: votingPower }); // Weight votes by influence scores const weightedVotes = votes.map((vote, i) => vote * influence.scores[i]); // Compute consensus using weighted voting const consensus = await mcp__sublinear-time-solver__solve({ matrix: { rows: votes.length, cols: votes.length, format: "dense", data: this.createVotingMatrix(influence.scores) }, vector: weightedVotes, method: "neumann", epsilon: 1e-8 }); return { decision: this.extractDecision(consensus.solution), confidence: this.calculateConfidence(consensus), participationRate: this.calculateParticipation(votes) }; }
javascript// Coordinate actions across agent swarm class SwarmCoordinator { async coordinateActions(agents, objectives, constraints) { // Create coordination matrix const coordinationMatrix = this.buildCoordinationMatrix(agents, constraints); // Solve coordination problem const coordination = await mcp__sublinear-time-solver__solve({ matrix: coordinationMatrix, vector: objectives, method: "random-walk", epsilon: 1e-6, maxIterations: 500 }); return { assignments: this.extractAssignments(coordination.solution), efficiency: this.calculateEfficiency(coordination), conflicts: this.identifyConflicts(coordination) }; } async optimizeSwarmTopology(currentTopology, performanceMetrics) { // Analyze current topology effectiveness const analysis = await mcp__sublinear-time-solver__analyzeMatrix({ matrix: currentTopology, checkDominance: true, checkSymmetry: false, estimateCondition: true }); // Generate optimized topology return this.generateOptimizedTopology(analysis, performanceMetrics); } }
javascript// Deploy consensus cluster in Flow Nexus const consensusCluster = await mcp__flow-nexus__sandbox_create({ template: "node", name: "consensus-cluster", env_vars: { CLUSTER_SIZE: "10", CONSENSUS_PROTOCOL: "byzantine", FAULT_TOLERANCE: "33" } }); // Initialize consensus network const networkSetup = await mcp__flow-nexus__sandbox_execute({ sandbox_id: consensusCluster.id, code: ` const ConsensusNetwork = require('.$consensus-network'); class DistributedConsensus { constructor(nodeCount, faultTolerance) { this.nodes = Array.from({length: nodeCount}, (_, i) => new ConsensusNode(i, faultTolerance)); this.network = new ConsensusNetwork(this.nodes); } async startConsensus(proposal) { console.log('Starting consensus for proposal:', proposal); // Initialize consensus round const round = this.network.initializeRound(proposal); // Execute consensus protocol while (!round.hasReachedConsensus()) { await round.executePhase(); // Check for Byzantine behaviors const suspiciousNodes = round.detectByzantineNodes(); if (suspiciousNodes.length > 0) { console.log('Byzantine nodes detected:', suspiciousNodes); } } return round.getConsensusResult(); } } // Start consensus cluster const consensus = new DistributedConsensus( parseInt(process.env.CLUSTER_SIZE), parseInt(process.env.FAULT_TOLERANCE) ); console.log('Consensus cluster initialized'); `, language: "javascript" });
javascript// Implement blockchain consensus using sublinear algorithms const blockchainConsensus = await mcp__flow-nexus__neural_train({ config: { architecture: { type: "transformer", layers: [ { type: "attention", heads: 8, units: 256 }, { type: "feedforward", units: 512, activation: "relu" }, { type: "attention", heads: 4, units: 128 }, { type: "dense", units: 1, activation: "sigmoid" } ] }, training: { epochs: 100, batch_size: 64, learning_rate: 0.001, optimizer: "adam" } }, tier: "large" });
The Consensus Coordinator Agent serves as the backbone for all distributed coordination and agreement protocols, ensuring reliable and efficient consensus across various distributed computing environments and multi-agent systems.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | pass→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 20 counted toward the lift figure. The other 2 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +18 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 20 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.