AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Multi Agent Analysis

skill-preetamnath-agent-skills-multi-agent-analysis · by preetamnath

Dispatch 1–3 subagents to analyze or verify something, then judge their findings yourself. TRIGGER when: user says 'multi-agent analysis', 'use subagents to analyze/verify', or 'dispatch subagents' to look into something.

No reviews yet
0 installs
5 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-preetamnath-agent-skills-multi-agent-analysis

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Multi Agent Analysis? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Multi-Agent Analysis

When to use

You want subagents to do the legwork on a question and hand you a grounded answer to judge.

Steps

Step 1 — Frame the problem

  • Frame: restate the problem in a line or two and name its type — verify a claim/fix · which answer is correct · architecturally correct + simplest · how something works.
  • Task list: if the ask has independent parts, list them first (TaskCreate) so none is dropped.

Step 2 — Size and dispatch (parallel)

Pick N by breadth, then dispatch all in one message so they run concurrently:

  • Size: 1 for a focused question, 2–3 when it splits into independent angles or surfaces. Cap at 3.
  • Dispatch: one message, multiple Agent calls. Model per task — opus for architectural/design judgment, sonnet for mapping, code-tracing, or doc/web research.
  • Brief each: the problem statement, its own angle, and file paths (not pasted contents). Ground every claim in source it read; return the [Findings schema](#output-schema), not a raw dump. Also have it flag anything material it notices outside the question.

Step 3 — Ground and apply your verdict

Collapse duplicates first — the same finding from 2+ subagents is one, keep its highest confidence. Then sort by confidence into bands and judge:

  • keep (≥ 0.80): re-check each against source yourself — read the cited code/doc; don't act on an unverified summary.
  • triage (0.70–0.80): contested — if it's decision-driving, get an independent check first (invoke the triage skill, or read the source yourself).
  • drop (< 0.70): list it, don't act.

Then apply your own verdict on top: agree, correct, or overrule each with reasoning — never relay verbatim. Where findings conflict, resolve deliberately against source; don't average.

Step 4 — Present for decision

Lead with the answer, then report in this shape:

**Analysis result:**
- Answer: [one-line plain-language answer]
- Findings: [claim — your verdict (agree / correct / overrule) — confidence 0.00–1.00, one per line]
- Observations: [material finding outside scope | none]
- Open questions: [unresolved item | none]

Add a tree / ASCII map or table where it aids understanding — current vs proposed, file map, or flow. Stop there — the user decides what to apply.

Rules

  • Read-only. Analyze and recommend; leave edits and execution to the user or a build skill.
  • Recursion guard. Subagents must not fan out their own subagents — keep to one level.

Output Schema

Findings {
  problem: string,                 // the framed problem statement
  findings: [ {
    claim: string,                 // discovery or recommended action, one line
    reasoning: string,             // why — or pro/con — as appropriate
    evidence: string,              // file:line, or doc/URL it's grounded in
    confidence: number             // 0.00–1.00
  } ],
  observations: string[],          // material findings outside the framed question
  open_questions: string[]         // what could not be resolved from source
}

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.