Install
$ agentstack add skill-preetamnath-agent-skills-multi-agent-analysis ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo 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.
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
Agentcalls. Model per task —opusfor architectural/design judgment,sonnetfor 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
triageskill, 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.
- Author: preetamnath
- Source: preetamnath/agent-skills
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://www.preetamnath.com/blog/agent-skills
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.