By programming one AI agent with a skeptical persona to question strategy and check details, the overall quality and rigor of the entire multi-agent system increases, mirroring the effect of a critical thinker in a human team.

Related Insights

To build a useful multi-agent AI system, model the agents after your existing human team. Create specialized agents for distinct roles like 'approvals,' 'document drafting,' or 'administration' to replicate and automate a proven workflow, rather than designing a monolithic, abstract AI.

Move beyond simple prompts by designing detailed interactions with specific AI personas, like a "critic" or a "big thinker." This allows teams to debate concepts back and forth, transforming AI from a task automator into a true thought partner that amplifies rigor.

To avoid context drift in long AI sessions, create temporary, task-based agents with specialized roles. Use these agents as checkpoints to review outputs from previous steps and make key decisions, ensuring higher-quality results and preventing error propagation.

To improve the quality and accuracy of an AI agent's output, spawn multiple sub-agents with competing or adversarial roles. For example, a code review agent finds bugs, while several "auditor" agents check for false positives, resulting in a more reliable final analysis.

An effective multi-agent system assigns distinct roles (e.g., researcher, brand voice, skeptic) and orients all work around a single, clear company objective, or "North Star," to ensure alignment and prevent idle cycles.

Separating AI agents into distinct roles (e.g., a technical expert and a customer-facing communicator) mirrors real-world team specializations. This allows for tailored configurations, like different 'temperature' settings for creativity versus accuracy, improving overall performance and preventing role confusion.

Borrowing from classic management theory, the most effective way to use AI agents is to fix problems at the earliest 'lowest value stage'. This means rigorously reviewing the agent's proposed plan *before* it writes any code, preventing costly rework later on.

Define different agents (e.g., Designer, Engineer, Executive) with unique instructions and perspectives, then task them with reviewing a document in parallel. This generates diverse, structured feedback that mimics a real-world team review, surfacing potential issues from multiple viewpoints simultaneously.

Meetings often suffer from groupthink, where consensus is prioritized over critical thinking. AI can be used to disrupt this by introducing alternative perspectives and challenging assumptions. Even if the AI's points are not perfect, they serve the crucial function of breaking the gravitational pull toward premature agreement.

Instead of a generic code review, use multiple AI agents with distinct personas (e.g., security expert, performance engineer, an opinionated developer like DHH). This simulates a diverse review panel, catching a wider range of potential issues and improvements.

Improve AI Team Output by Creating a Designated "Skeptic" Agent | RiffOn