Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Agent Teams orchestration patterns for multi-agent SAFe workflows. Use when spawning agent teams, coordinating teammates, enforcing quality gates via task dependencies, or orchestrating the 11-agent SAFe pipeline. Covers team creation, messaging, shared task lists, and SAFe gate enforcement. Do NOT use for single-agent or simple subagent workflows.
.claude/skills/bybren-llc-team-coordination/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -2% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 1% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 13% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 18% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 26% | 0% |
Orchestrate Claude Code Agent Teams for SAFe multi-agent workflows. This skill provides patterns for spawning teams, assigning work by role, enforcing quality gates via task dependencies, and managing the full delivery pipeline.
Agent Teams are experimental and must be enabled:
json// .claude/settings.json or settings.local.json { "env": { "CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1" } }
Invoke this skill when:
| Approach | Communication | Coordination | Best For | |----------|--------------|--------------|----------| | Agent Teams | DMs, broadcasts | Shared TaskList with dependencies | Complex multi-role SAFe workflows | | Subagents | Report back only | Main agent manages | Focused tasks, results only | | Background Agents | None | None | Fire-and-forget parallel work |
Use Agent Teams when: teammates need to share findings, challenge each other, and coordinate via SAFe gates. Use Subagents when: you need quick, focused workers that report back. Use Background Agents when: tasks are independent and don't need coordination.
The TDM (Technical Delivery Manager) is the natural team lead in the 11-agent model:
Create an agent team for {{TICKET_PREFIX}}-XXX implementation.
Team lead (TDM) responsibilities:
- Spawn teammates by role (BE, FE, QAS, etc.)
- Create tasks with SAFe gate dependencies
- Monitor progress and steer teammates
- Synthesize results and escalate blockers
Spawn these teammates:
- BE Developer: Implement API endpoints per spec
- FE Developer: Implement UI components per spec
- QAS: Validate acceptance criteria after implementationUse addBlockedBy / addBlocks to enforce the SAFe pipeline:
Task structure for {{TICKET_PREFIX}}-XXX:
1. "Implement API endpoint" (owner: be-developer)
2. "Implement UI components" (owner: fe-developer)
3. "QAS validation" (owner: qas, blockedBy: [1, 2])
4. "Create PR" (owner: rte, blockedBy: [3])
5. "Stage 1 review" (owner: system-architect, blockedBy: [4])
This enforces: Implementation → QAS → RTE → Architect ReviewMap harness agent roles to teammate configurations:
Spawn teammates with role-specific prompts:
BE Developer teammate:
- Load: api-patterns, rls-patterns skills
- Task: Implement endpoints per spec at specs/{{TICKET_PREFIX}}-XXX-spec.md
- Constraint: All DB operations must use RLS context helpers
FE Developer teammate:
- Load: frontend-patterns skill
- Task: Implement UI per spec
- Constraint: Follow component patterns in patterns_library/ui/
QAS teammate:
- Load: testing-patterns skill
- Task: Execute testing strategy from spec
- Constraint: Must verify all acceptance criteria before approving
- Plan approval required (require plan approval before QAS makes changes)Create an agent team to review PR #XXX. Spawn three reviewers:
- Security reviewer: Focus on RLS enforcement, input validation, auth checks
- Architecture reviewer: Focus on pattern compliance, separation of concerns
- Test reviewer: Focus on test coverage, edge cases, acceptance criteria
Have them each review independently, then share and challenge findings.Users report [issue description]. Spawn 3-4 teammates to investigate:
- Teammate 1: Investigate [hypothesis A]
- Teammate 2: Investigate [hypothesis B]
- Teammate 3: Investigate [hypothesis C]
Have them talk to each other to challenge and disprove theories.
Update findings as consensus emerges.Send a message to the BE developer:
"The API endpoint needs to handle pagination. Check patterns_library/api/
for the standard pagination pattern before implementing."Broadcast to all teammates:
"STOP: Architecture decision changed. The auth middleware now uses
{{AUTH_PROVIDER}} session tokens instead of JWT. Check the updated
spec before continuing."Only broadcast for:
When all tasks are complete:
1. Send shutdown_request to each teammate
2. Wait for approval from each
3. Clean up team resources via TeamDeleteValidates teammates completed their work before going idle:
json{ "hooks": { "TeammateIdle": [{ "command": "bash -c 'echo \"Verify all assigned tasks are completed before going idle\"'", "description": "Validate teammate completed assigned work" }] } }
Exit code 2 sends feedback and keeps the teammate working.
Validates task output meets criteria before allowing completion:
json{ "hooks": { "TaskCompleted": [{ "command": "bash -c 'echo \"Verify acceptance criteria met before marking complete\"'", "description": "Validate task meets acceptance criteria" }] } }
Exit code 2 prevents completion and sends feedback.
| Work Scope | Recommended Size | Tasks per Teammate | |-----------|-----------------|-------------------| | Single Story | 2-3 teammates | 3-4 tasks each | | Feature (multi-story) | 3-5 teammates | 5-6 tasks each | | Epic (parallel features) | 5-8 teammates | 5-6 tasks each |
Rules of thumb:
CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS/resume doesn't restore in-process teammatesAGENTS.md.claude/team-config.json| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 23,609 | 12,408 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,930 | 3,839 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 23,519 | 11,849 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,582 | 3,630 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 22,858 | 14,551 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,436 | 3,894 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 12,631 | 7,503 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,932 | 2,985 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 12,544 | 3,415 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,897 | 2,241 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 8,090 | 5,658 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,397 | 2,677 | +92% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 10,052 | 6,608 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,650 | 2,821 | +71% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 13,786 | 8,420 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,073 | 2,940 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 12,437 | 4,567 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,966 | 2,481 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 20,914 | 10,307 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,275 | 3,390 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 14,451 | 3,090 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,149 | 2,162 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 7,430 | 2,483 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 993 | 2,087 | +110% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 4,438 | 3,041 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 614 | 2,138 | +248% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 13,327 | 8,668 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,061 | 3,020 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 8,784 | 1,919 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,470 | 1,980 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 13,477 | 7,230 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,920 | 2,631 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 22,297 | 14,720 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,125 | 3,833 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 12,111 | 6,237 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,773 | 2,560 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 9,170 | 4,296 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,283 | 2,289 | +78% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 14,089 | 5,427 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,851 | 2,473 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 7,547 | 3,225 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,158 | 2,146 | +85% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 17,059 | 6,238 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,681 | 2,862 | +7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→pass | 13,483 | 2,876 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,952 | 2,106 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
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. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +52 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.