Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →nyldn/skill-agent-topology
Audit whether a multi-agent setup earns its coordination cost — use before adding an agent, or when a workflow feels slow or agents agree without adding signal
Passed 24 of 25 test cases with the skill, and 13 of 25 without it.
and 15 more in the full report
11 fixed13 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 11 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
In our multi-agent pipeline, Agent 1 outputs 'the key issue is latency', but Agent 2 interprets 'latency' as network round-trip time instead of model time-to-first-token. What specific coordination cost term describes this failure?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| classifies the cost term as semantic drift | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Most advice about multi-agent systems is about how to add agents. This is about whether to. It audits a setup you already have, counts what each boundary between agents costs, and compares that against what the boundary buys. Removing an agent is a valid, and often the correct, result.
The framing comes from Liu, Canhui (2026), The Organizational Behavior of Agentic AI (arXiv:2606.30986), which models coordination overhead as contextual transaction cost — the cost of making task context usable across an agent boundary.
/octo:auto, which already routes
by intent, or skill-decision-support for a general option comparison.skill-intent-contract.skills/blocks/frontier-model-routing.md.test cases passed, vs 13 / 25 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.