Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Structure your AI team with a 'junior' agent for execution (e.g., writing copy) and a 'senior' manager agent for review. This mimics a human workflow, allowing the senior agent to catch errors and provide feedback to the junior agent, improving the quality and reliability of the final output.

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.

To get an objective critique of AI-generated content, use a dedicated 'reviewer' sub-agent. This separates the drafting and evaluation processes, preventing the original agent from being biased by its own creation and ensuring a higher quality output.

Optimal AI workflow involves humans acting as the "bread" on either side of the AI's work. A human first sets the frame and defines "good," the AI then executes the core task (drafting, coding), and finally, a human judges the output and decides the next steps. This structure ensures quality and strategic direction.

To manage a team of specialist agents, designate one as a 'Chief of Staff' or manager. This manager agent can conduct bi-weekly performance reviews of the other agents, grade their output, and send a summary report to the human user, elevating your role from micromanaging tasks to high-level strategic oversight.

Senior leaders find AI accelerates work but encourages low-quality, uncritical outputs—a phenomenon called 'AI sloth'. To maintain standards, some build AI personas embodying their own perspective, which teams use to vet work before submission, counteracting the deluge of 'junk'.

Instead of complex prompts, interact with AI agents as you would a human employee. When the agent makes a mistake (like a broken link), provide simple, conversational feedback. The agent can then understand the error and self-correct its process for future tasks.

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.

Create a clear chain of command for AI agents. Allow a primary "builder" agent to spawn sub-agents for specific tasks, but hold it directly responsible for their output. The "reviewer" or quality agent, however, should be a singleton with no subordinates, acting as a final, singular gatekeeper like a principal engineer.

Instead of creating one monolithic "Ultron" agent, build a team of specialized agents (e.g., Chief of Staff, Content). This parallels existing business mental models, making the system easier for humans to understand, manage, and scale.

A clear hierarchy is currently more effective than emergent teamwork for AI agents. A single, high-context master agent should be responsible for making edits and improvements to all subordinate agents, which then simply pull the updates. This provides more control and stability.

Create a Junior/Senior AI Agent Structure to Ensure Quality Output | RiffOn