Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.
Installs just this skill. Get the whole plugin for auto-invocation.
⚡ How it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
Slash command/agent-protocol
👁️ Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.
📊 Stats
Stars23,062
Forks3,139
LanguagePython
LicenseMIT
📦 Ships with claude-skills
</> SKILL.md
agent-protocol.SKILL.md
---name: "agent-protocol"
description: "Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles."
license: MIT
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
author: Alireza Rezvani
category: c-level
domain: agent-orchestration
updated: 2026-03-05
frameworks: invocation-patterns
---# Inter-Agent Protocol
How C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.
## Keywords
agent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol
## Invocation Syntax
Any agent can query another using:
```
[INVOKE:role|question]
```
**Examples:**
```
[INVOKE:cfo|What's the burn rate impact of hiring 5 engineers in Q3?]
[INVOKE:cto|Can we realistically ship this feature by end of quarter?]
[INVOKE:chro|What's our typical time-to-hire for senior engineers?]
State assumption used instead: [explicit assumption the agent is making]
```
## Isolation Rules
### Board Meeting Phase 2 (Independent Analysis)
**NO invocations allowed.** Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.
- Reason: prevent anchoring and groupthink
- Duration: entire Phase 2 analysis period
- If an agent needs data from another role: state explicit assumption, flag it with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]`
### Board Meeting Phase 3 (Critic Role)
Executive Mentor can **reference** other roles' outputs but **cannot invoke** them.
- Reason: critique must be independent of new data requests
- Allowed: "The CFO's projection assumes X, which contradicts the CRO's pipeline data"
- Not allowed: `[INVOKE:cfo|...]` during critique phase
### Outside Board Meetings
Invocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.
## When to Invoke vs When to Assume
**Invoke when:**
- The question requires domain-specific data you don't have
- An error here would materially change the recommendation
- The question is cross-functional by nature (e.g., hiring impact on both budget and capacity)
**Assume when:**
- The data is directionally clear and precision isn't critical
- You're in Phase 2 isolation (always assume, never invoke)
- The chain is already at depth 2
- The question is minor compared to your main analysis
**When assuming, always state it:**
```
[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]
```
## Conflict Resolution
When two invoked agents give conflicting answers:
1. **Flag the conflict explicitly:**
```
[CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]
```
2. **State the resolution approach:**
- Conservative: use the worse case
- Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores
- Escalate: flag for human decision
3. **Never silently pick one** — surface the conflict to the user.
## Broadcast Pattern (Crisis / CEO)
CEO can broadcast to all roles simultaneously:
```
[BROADCAST:all|What's the impact if we miss the fundraise?]
```
Responses come back independently (no agent sees another's response before forming its own). Aggregate after all respond.
## Decision Memory (Canonical Layout)
All C-suite skills and `/cs:*` commands read and write decisions in **one** place — the two-layer model owned by `/cs:decide` and the decision-logger skill:
```
~/.claude/decisions/
├── raw/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md # Layer 1 — full transcripts/deliberations (never auto-loaded)
├── raw/archive/YYYY/ # Raw files after 90 days
├── approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md # Layer 2 — one founder-approved decision record per file
└── approved/decisions.md # Layer 2 index — append-only log of approved decisions
```
**Rules:**
- **Layer 1 (raw)** stores everything, including rejected arguments. Reference only — never feeds future sessions automatically.
- **Layer 2 (approved)** stores only founder-approved decisions. This is what board meetings, `/cs:office-hours`, and `/cs:founder-mode` load. Prevents hallucinated consensus.
- Writers: `/cs:decide` and the Chief of Staff (post board-meeting Phase 5). Individual role agents never write decisions directly.
- decision-logger, chief-of-staff, and board-meeting all use this layout. Their SKILL.md files link here rather than defining their own paths.
**Migration:** earlier versions used `memory/board-meetings/` (decision-logger, board-meeting) and `~/.claude/decision-log.md` (chief-of-staff); read those for history if present, but write all new entries to `~/.claude/decisions/`.
