Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, agents, posts, Skills and MCP servers

team-communication-protocols

Structured messaging protocols for agent team communication including message type selection, plan approval, shutdown procedures, and anti-patterns to avoid. Use this skill when establishing communication norms for a newly spawned team, when deciding whether to send a direct message or a broadcast, when a team-lead needs to review and approve an implementer's plan before work begins, when orchestrating a graceful team shutdown after all tasks are complete, or when debugging why teammates are not coordinating correctly at integration points.

代码质量与审查40kplugins/agent-teams/skills/team-communication-protocols/SKILL.md

Install

Send this to Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. The agent reviews the Skill for safety first and installs it after you confirm.

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/wshobson/agents/team-communication-protocols/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Team Communication Protocols

Protocols for effective communication between agent teammates, including message type selection, plan approval workflows, shutdown procedures, and common anti-patterns to avoid.

When to Use This Skill

  • Establishing communication norms for a new team
  • Choosing between message types (message, broadcast, shutdown_request)
  • Handling plan approval workflows
  • Managing graceful team shutdown
  • Discovering teammate identities and capabilities

Message Type Selection

message (Direct Message) — Default Choice

Send to a single specific teammate:

{
  "type": "message",
  "recipient": "implementer-1",
  "content": "Your API endpoint is ready. You can now build the frontend form.",
  "summary": "API endpoint ready for frontend"
}

Use for: Task updates, coordination, questions, integration notifications.

broadcast — Use Sparingly

Send to ALL teammates simultaneously:

{
  "type": "broadcast",
  "content": "Critical: shared types file has been updated. Pull latest before continuing.",
  "summary": "Shared types updated"
}

Use ONLY for: Critical blockers affecting everyone, major changes to shared resources.

Why sparingly?: Each broadcast sends N separate messages (one per teammate), consuming API resources proportional to team size.

shutdown_request — Graceful Termination

Request a teammate to shut down:

{
  "type": "shutdown_request",
  "recipient": "reviewer-1",
  "content": "Review complete, shutting down team."
}

The teammate responds with shutdown_response (approve or reject with reason).

Communication Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternProblemBetter Approach
Broadcasting routine updatesWastes resources, noiseDirect message to affected teammate
Sending JSON status messagesNot designed for structured dataUse TaskUpdate to update task status
Not communicating at integration pointsTeammates build against stale interfacesMessage when your interface is ready
Micromanaging via messagesOverwhelms teammates, slows workCheck in at milestones, not every step
Using UUIDs instead of namesHard to read, error-proneAlways use teammate names
Ignoring idle teammatesWasted capacityAssign new work or shut down

Plan Approval Workflow

When a teammate is spawned with plan_mode_required:

  1. Teammate creates a plan using read-only exploration tools
  2. Teammate calls ExitPlanMode which sends a plan_approval_request to the lead
  3. Lead reviews the plan
  4. Lead responds with plan_approval_response:

Approve:

{
  "type": "plan_approval_response",
  "request_id": "abc-123",
  "recipient": "implementer-1",
  "approve": true
}

Reject with feedback:

{
  "type": "plan_approval_response",
  "request_id": "abc-123",
  "recipient": "implementer-1",
  "approve": false,
  "content": "Please add error handling for the API calls"
}

Shutdown Protocol

Graceful Shutdown Sequence

  1. Lead sends shutdown_request to each teammate
  2. Teammate receives request as a JSON message with type: "shutdown_request"
  3. Teammate responds with shutdown_response:
    • approve: true — Teammate saves state and exits
    • approve: false + reason — Teammate continues working
  4. Lead handles rejections — Wait for teammate to finish, then retry
  5. After all teammates shut down — Call TeamDelete to remove team resources

Handling Rejections

If a teammate rejects shutdown:

  • Check their reason (usually "still working on task")
  • Wait for their current task to complete
  • Retry shutdown request
  • If urgent, user can force shutdown

Teammate Discovery

Find team members by reading the config file:

Location: ~/.claude/teams/{team-name}/config.json

Structure:

{
  "members": [
    {
      "name": "security-reviewer",
      "agentId": "uuid-here",
      "agentType": "team-reviewer"
    },
    {
      "name": "perf-reviewer",
      "agentId": "uuid-here",
      "agentType": "team-reviewer"
    }
  ]
}

Always use name for messaging and task assignment. Never use agentId, role names, or unsuffixed aliases directly. If a teammate was spawned as team-lead-2, send to team-lead-2, not team-lead.

Troubleshooting

A teammate is not responding to messages. Check the teammate's task status. If it is idle, it may have completed its task and is waiting to be assigned new work or shut down. If it is still active, it may be mid-execution and will process messages once the current operation finishes.

A teammate says it cannot see SendMessage. Check the teammate agent's tools: frontmatter. Agent Teams communication tools such as SendMessage, TaskList, TaskGet, and TaskUpdate must be listed explicitly when an agent uses a restricted tool allowlist.

The lead is sending broadcasts for every status update. This is a common anti-pattern. Broadcasts are expensive — each one sends N messages. Use direct messages (type: "message") for point-to-point updates. Reserve broadcasts for critical shared-resource changes like an updated interface contract.

A teammate rejected a shutdown request unexpectedly. The teammate is still working. Check the rejection reason in the shutdown_response content field, wait for the work to finish, then retry. Never force-terminate a teammate that has unsaved work.

A plan_approval_request arrived but the request_id is missing. The teammate called ExitPlanMode without the required request context. Have the teammate re-enter plan mode, complete exploration, and call ExitPlanMode again. The request_id is generated automatically by the plan mode system.

Two teammates are waiting on each other and neither is making progress. This is a deadlock: both are blocked waiting for the other to finish first. The lead should send a direct message to one teammate with a stub or partial result so it can unblock and proceed.

Similar Skills

claude-api
Official
anthropics/skills180k

claude-api

Reference for the Claude API / Anthropic SDK — model ids, pricing, params, streaming, tool use, MCP, agents, caching, token counting, model migration. TRIGGER — read BEFORE opening the target file; don't skip because it "looks like a one-liner" — whenever: the prompt names Claude/Anthropic in any form (Claude, Anthropic, Fable, Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, `anthropic`, `@anthropic-ai`, `claude-*`, `us.anthropic.*`, `[1m]`); the user asks about an LLM (pricing/model choice/limits/caching) — never answer from memory; OR the task is LLM-shaped with provider unstated (agent/MCP/tool-definition/multi-agent/RAG/LLM-judge/computer-use; generate/summarize/extract/classify/rewrite/converse over NL; debugging refusals/cutoffs/streaming/tool-calls/tokens). SKIP only when another provider is being worked on (overrides all triggers): OpenAI/GPT/Gemini/Llama/Mistral/Cohere/Ollama named in the query; OR `grep -rE 'openai|langchain_openai|google.generativeai|genai|mistralai|cohere|ollama'` over the project hits (run this grep FIRST if no provider named — don't Read the file).

Code quality & review

ponytail
DietrichGebert/ponytail157k

ponytail

Lazy senior dev mode for any coding task (write, refactor, fix, review): YAGNI, stdlib first, no unrequested abstractions. Not for non-coding requests.

Code quality & review

ponytail-review
DietrichGebert/ponytail157k

ponytail-review

Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.

Code quality & review

documentation-and-adrs
addyosmani/agent-skills102k

documentation-and-adrs

Records decisions and documentation. Use when you need to document an architecture decision (ADR) or the reasoning behind a design choice, when changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.

Code quality & review

code-simplification
addyosmani/agent-skills102k

code-simplification

Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.

Code quality & review

code-review-and-quality
addyosmani/agent-skills102k

code-review-and-quality

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted inline.

Code quality & review