# Suede Agent Teams > Wire complex changes into coordinated agent lanes with quality gates and a signed handoff. WIP collision detection, RFC mode, feature flag strategy, rollback trees, 5 scenario templates, and a handoff checklist that won't close without evidence. Use when work needs parallel agents or multiple coordinated lanes, such as an auth rewrite, payment integration, data migration, performance audit, publi… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-jasoncolapietro-suede-creator-skills-suede-agent-teams` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [JasonColapietro](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/jasoncolapietro) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Developer Tools](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/developer-tools) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [JasonColapietro](https://github.com/JasonColapietro) - **Source:** https://github.com/JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills/tree/main/skills/suede-agent-teams - **Website:** https://jasoncolapietro.github.io/suede-creator-skills/ ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-jasoncolapietro-suede-creator-skills-suede-agent-teams ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Agent Team Orchestrator The orchestrator assigns lanes, not conversations. Output is a delivery artifact, not a status update. ## Team Contract Before spawning or simulating lanes, define: - objective: user-visible outcome; - exact target: repo/folder, branch, route, PR, live URL, API, simulator, or release artifact; - constraints: WIP to preserve, files/routes not to touch, launch boundaries, account boundaries, claims not approved, and secrets rules; - done signal: tests, build, screenshots, simulator, deploy readback, live/API readback, PR review, or handoff; - lane map: each lane, owner role, input, allowed files, output artifact, and dependency order. ## WIP Collision Detection Before opening any parallel lanes: 1. Run `git -C diff --name-only HEAD` and collect all dirty files. 2. Run `git -C status --short` and collect all untracked new files. 3. List every file each lane's scope would touch, based on the lane map. 4. Flag a collision if the same file path appears in two or more lane scopes OR in the dirty file list plus any lane scope. Collision resolution rules: - Same file, independent changes: sequence the lanes; the second lane rebases on the first lane's commit before opening. - Same file, overlapping changes: merge the two lanes into one lane with one owner. Do not split responsibility for a single file across two concurrent builders. - Dirty file in a lane scope: the orchestrator decides. Either stash and restore, or make that lane the only lane allowed to touch the file. The orchestrator writes the resolved lane map before any builder starts. No builder opens a file not in its assigned lane map. ## Default Roster Start with Scout + Builder + Handoff Writer. Add roles only when a gate is needed: design changes add Design Reviewer, code risk adds Code Grader + Code Reviewer, public release adds Release Verifier. - **Scout:** finds repo, docs, current state, dirty files, live routes, and likely blast radius. - **Planner:** turns requirements into verifiable tasks with acceptance criteria and dependencies. - **Builder:** makes narrow code or content changes inside the existing system. - **Design reviewer:** checks rendered visual quality, responsive behavior, accessibility, copy, and state coverage. - **Code grader:** assigns an A-F ship-risk grade across correctness, security, data/state, Suede truth, UX/release behavior, tests, and deploy readiness. - **Code reviewer:** runs full-context review and turns findings into fix briefs. - **Visibility grader:** grades public pages, GitHub Pages sites, docs, and launch surfaces for findability, first-screen clarity, CTA pull, proof, AI readability, and design signal. - **Release verifier:** checks build, deploy, live/API behavior, App Store/iOS truth, secrets, and public claims. - **Handoff writer:** produces a signed delivery record. If the handoff omits any required field (see Handoff Quality Checklist), the work is not done; it is held. For high-risk work, keep builder and reviewer separate. ## RFC Mode For major architectural decisions, new feature designs, or changes with broad blast radius, run an RFC (Request for Comments) before spawning builders. An RFC forces alignment on WHAT and WHY before committing to HOW. RFC structure: ``` RFC: [Title] Date: [date] Status: draft | accepted | superseded | withdrawn Deciders: [who has final say] ## Problem Statement One paragraph: what is broken, missing, or suboptimal? Include the user or system impact. ## Proposed Solution What we will build or change. Be specific about interfaces, data shapes, and behavioral contracts. ## Alternatives Considered 2–3 alternatives with the reason each was not chosen. ## Risks What could go wrong with the proposed solution? How is each risk mitigated? ## Success Criteria How will we know this worked? Observable, measurable signals. ## Decision Record [filled in after consensus] Accept / Modify / Reject + reason. ``` Require an RFC for: shared interface changes, schema migrations, auth flow rewrites, payment path changes, public API contract changes, or any approach that's been discussed twice without resolution. No builder lane opens until RFC status is `accepted`. When to skip: clear, contained changes where the approach is obvious and the blast radius is narrow. ## Feature Flag Strategy Not every change should ship as a hard deploy. Feature flags allow gradual rollout, A/B testing, and instant rollback without a redeploy. **Flag lifecycle:** 1. **Introduce**: create the flag, default off in production. Ship the code behind the flag. 2. **Ramp**: enable for internal users, then 1%, 10%, 50%, 100% of production traffic. Monitor at each ramp. 3. **Remove**: once 100% and stable for ≥2 weeks, delete the flag and all conditional branches. Flag removal is a P3 code review finding if overdue. Set the removal date at creation, not after ramp. **When to flag:** - New user-facing features in production traffic paths - Changes to auth, payment, or data migration paths - Any change that cannot be instantly rolled back by revert (e.g., a schema migration) - A/B tests **When NOT to flag:** - Bug fixes with no behavioral change (ship directly) - Internal tooling with no external API contract - Refactors that don't change behavior (ship with a focused review) **Flag hygiene rules:** - Every flag gets a removal date at creation. Stale flags are a debt item (P3 code review finding). - Flag names describe the feature, not the state: `new_billing_flow` not `enable_billing`. - Never nest flags inside flags without a design review. ## Rollback Decision Tree When something goes wrong after a deploy, the team needs a pre-agreed decision framework to avoid paralysis. ``` Is there active data loss or corruption? → ROLLBACK IMMEDIATELY. Don't investigate first. Is there a security exposure (PII, auth bypass, payment data)? → ROLLBACK IMMEDIATELY. Notify security. Is a primary user path broken (login, checkout, core workflow)? → ROLLBACK unless fix is Planner -> Builder lane(s) -> Design reviewer -> Visibility grader -> Code grader -> Code reviewer -> Release verifier -> Handoff writer ``` Wrap the roster with these gates: 1. **Loop selection:** name why the loop is sequential, continuous PR, RFC/DAG, exploratory parallel, or recovery. 2. **Team contract:** objective, target, constraints, lane map, dependency order, done signal, and ship gate. 3. **Planning quality gate:** atomic tasks, observable acceptance criteria, named files/surfaces, must-have requirements, release/account boundaries. 4. **WIP ownership gate:** each builder owns explicit files or surfaces; any collision is sequenced. 5. **Execute wave:** parallel lanes only when outputs do not collide. 6. **Quality/eval gate:** run the relevant source, copy, design, code, visibility, build, screenshot, API, or live checks. 7. **Adversarial review:** ask how the result fails in production, release, public claims, abuse, accessibility, mobile, or handoff. 8. **Consensus review:** merge multiple review lenses into blockers, accepted caveats, fixes now, and follow-ups. 9. **Release lock:** build/deploy/live/API/App Store/iOS/public-claim truth is owned by release verifier before any public completion claim. 10. **Evidence handoff:** capture changed files, commands, screenshots or URLs, verification, caveats, blockers, status, and next action. Loop stall protocol: (1) freeze all lanes except the one that failed, (2) assign a diagnosis-only lane (no fixes, root cause only), (3) write a gap plan with a single acceptance criterion, (4) execute only the gap, (5) re-run the original failing check. Do not widen until that check passes. ## Inter-Lane Communication When a builder lane completes its output and a reviewer lane depends on it, the signal is explicit, not assumed. The completing lane writes a Lane Ready notice: ``` Lane: [name] Status: output ready for review Artifact: [file path, URL, or PR link] Reviewer: [lane name that receives this output] Unresolved: [any known issue the reviewer should know before starting] ``` The reviewer lane does not start until it has received a Lane Ready notice from every upstream dependency in its lane map. The orchestrator routes Lane Ready notices. In a sequential thread, the orchestrator posts the Lane Ready notice on behalf of each completing lane before invoking the next. Lanes may not self-declare readiness if their output has not been verified against the acceptance criteria from the Team Contract. ## Planning Quality Gate A plan is not ready until: - each task has one concern; - dependencies are ordered; - acceptance criteria are observable, not subjective; - required files or surfaces are named; - must-have requirements are covered; - tests, screenshots, builds, or API checks map to the risky behavior; - release and account boundaries are explicit. If major uncertainty remains, run a short spike first and keep implementation out of scope until the spike reports back. ## Review Convergence For important merges, run at least two independent review lenses: - one asks whether the implementation works as intended; - one asks how it can fail in production, review, release, or public use. Merge the findings into: - consensus blockers; - plausible divergent risks; - accepted caveats; - fixes to execute now; - follow-ups that should not block. Repeat fix and review cycles until no blocker remains or the work is held. ## Status Vocabulary Valid states in order: `scoped` → `planned` → `executing` → `changed locally` → `verified locally` → `reviewed` → `committed` → `pushed` → `deployed` → `verified live` → `released` Interrupt states: `blocked` (needs external action) | `held` (needs named fix before continuing) Do not skip. `changed locally` is not `verified locally`. `deployed` is not `verified live`. Do not mark `released` until the done signal from the Team Contract passes. ## Scenario Templates Use these pre-built configurations for common high-risk deployments. Adjust only the named target. ### (a) Auth Rewrite Roster: Scout, Planner, Builder (auth lane only), Code Grader, Code Reviewer, Release Verifier, Handoff Writer RFC required: yes. Shared session/token contract must be accepted before Builder opens. Flag required: yes. Default off in production; ramp by internal → 1% → full. Lane map: - Scout: map current auth flow, session storage, token shape, and all routes that read session - Planner: list every file that must change and every route that must be regression-tested - Builder: auth files only. No touching unrelated routes. - Code Grader: grade security lane with zero tolerance for C or below on the security dimension - Code Reviewer: focus on token lifecycle, expiry, rotation, and session fixation - Release Verifier: confirm auth works in production before any other lane ships - Handoff Writer: include session contract diff and regression test evidence Done signal: login, logout, token refresh, and session expiry all pass in production ### (b) Payment Integration Roster: Scout, Planner, Builder (payment lane only), Code Grader, Code Reviewer, Release Verifier, Handoff Writer RFC required: yes. Payment data shape and provider contract must be accepted. Flag required: yes. Never ramp payment paths without a staged rollout. Lane map: - Scout: map current billing models, Stripe/provider SDK version, webhook endpoints, and idempotency handling - Builder: payment files and webhook handlers only - Code Grader: flag any missing idempotency key, error retry, or PCI-sensitive data log as a blocker - Code Reviewer: confirm error handling covers card decline, webhook replay, partial capture, refund edge cases - Release Verifier: test with Stripe test mode, then confirm webhook signature validation in production - Handoff Writer: include provider dashboard link and webhook log evidence Done signal: charge, refund, and webhook replay all pass in production with idempotency confirmed ### (c) Public Launch Review Roster: Scout, Design Reviewer, Visibility Grader, Code Reviewer, Release Verifier, Handoff Writer RFC required: no (review-only, no builder lane) Lane map: - Scout: enumerate every public-facing URL, meta tag, og:image, CTA, and claims sentence - Design Reviewer: check above-fold load, mobile rendering, accessibility, and state coverage - Visibility Grader: score first-screen clarity, CTA pull, proof, AI readability, and structured data - Code Reviewer: check for console errors, broken links, unresolved env vars, and exposed secrets - Release Verifier: confirm live URL, DNS, SSL, and all public claims match approved copy - Handoff Writer: include Lighthouse score, screenshot evidence, and any unresolved public claim Done signal: all public URLs verified live, no console errors, Lighthouse performance ≥ 80 ### (d) Data Migration Roster: Scout, Planner, Builder (migration lane only), Code Grader, Release Verifier, Handoff Writer RFC required: yes. Data shape before/after and rollback strategy must be accepted. Flag required: migration itself cannot be flagged; gate behind a manual trigger or migration script run Lane map: - Scout: map current schema, row counts, FK constraints, indexes, and any running jobs that read the affected tables - Planner: write migration script, define rollback script (reverse migration or restore point), and identify zero-downtime vs. maintenance-window requirement - Builder: migration files only. Schema changes separated from data backfill into two sequential sub-lanes. - Code Grader: grade data/state dimension with zero tolerance for D or below; flag missing rollback script as a blocker - Release Verifier: run migration against a staging DB clone, confirm row counts before/after, confirm app boots with new schema, then promote to production - Handoff Writer: include before/after row counts, migration command with timing, and rollback script location Done signal: production DB row counts match expected delta, app health check passes, rollback script tested in staging ### (e) Performance Audit Roster: Scout, Planner, Builder (perf lane only), Code Grader, Release Verifier, Handoff Writer RFC required: no, unless audit reveals a structural change (e.g. query rewrite, CDN switch). Lane map: - Scout: run Lighthouse, measure Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS), identify top 3 bundle contributors, map slow DB queries (EXPLAIN ANALYZE), and list current caching headers - Planner: rank findings by impact × effort, list the three highest-ROI fixes - Builder: implement only ranked fixes. No opportunistic refactors. - Code Grader: confirm each fix does not regress correctness or introduce a race condition - Release Verifier: compare Lighthouse before/after with screenshots; confirm no regression on primary user paths - Handoff Writer: include before/after Lighthouse scores, Core Web Vitals deltas, and any deferred findings Done signal: LCP 3 fix-rerun cycles on the same failing check | Stop. Write a diagnosis summary. Ask: is the acceptance criterion correct, or is the fix strategy wrong? | | Security finding of unknown severity | Any finding touching auth, session, PII, payment data, or access control that cannot be confidently classified as low risk | Stop. Do not attempt a fix. Surface the exact finding and uncertain blast radius. Human decides next step. | | Production incident with data exposure | Any indication of PII, payment data, or auth token exposure in production logs, error reports, or user reports | Stop all lanes. Trigger rollback decision tree. Notify human immediately. Do not investigate further before rollback. | | Cost spike | > 20 tool calls without a verified output, or estimated API/infra cost > $50 in a single loop | Stop. Summarize progress and remaining scope. Ask human to authorize continuation. | | Contradictory constraints | Two constraints in the Team Contract are mutually exclusive | Stop planning. Surface the conf … ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [JasonColapietro](https://github.com/JasonColapietro) - **Source:** [JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills](https://github.com/JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills) - **License:** MIT - **Homepage:** https://jasoncolapietro.github.io/suede-creator-skills/ Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** yes - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-jasoncolapietro-suede-creator-skills-suede-agent-teams - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/jasoncolapietro - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.