A Taxonomy of Architecture Options for Foundation Model-based Agents: Analysis and Decision Model

AI agent systems increasingly rely on reusable non-LLM engineering infrastructure that packages tool mediation, context handling, delegation, safety control, and orchestration. Yet the architectural design decisions in this surrounding infrastructure remain understudied. This paper presents a protocol-guided, source-grounded empirical study of 70 publicly available agent-system projects, addressing three questions: which design-decision dimensions recur across projects, which co-occurrences structure those decisions, and which typical architectural patterns emerge. Methodologically, we contribute a transparent investigation procedure for analyzing heterogeneous agent-system corpora through source-code and technical-material reading. Empirically, we identify five recurring design dimensions (subagent architecture, context management, tool systems, safety mechanisms, and orchestration) and find that the corpus favors file-persistent, hybrid, and hierarchical context strategies; registry-oriented tool systems remain dominant while MCP- and plugin-oriented extensions are emerging; and intermediate isolation is common but high-assurance audit is rare. Cross-project co-occurrence analysis reveals that deeper coordination pairs with more explicit context services, stronger execution environments with more structured governance, and formalized tool-registration boundaries with broader ecosystem ambitions. We synthesize five recurring architectural patterns spanning lightweight tools, balanced CLI frameworks, multi-agent orchestrators, enterprise systems, and scenario-verticalized projects. The result provides an evidence-based account of architectural regularities in agent-system engineering, with grounded guidance for framework designers, selectors, and researchers.

Enterprise interest in multi-agent systems has shifted from generic software agents to large-language-model (LLM) based intelligent agents that plan, use tools, maintain contextual memory, inspect intermediate results, collaborate with other agents, and sometimes act in systems of record. This paper revises the enterprise architecture thesis around a design-first claim: governance is necessary, but it cannot be the primary organizing abstraction. The primary abstraction must be agent design - capability boundaries, autonomy allocation, interaction protocols, tool and data authority, state and memory design, verification design, and human interaction design. We propose CEAD (Capability-Aligned Enterprise Agent Design), a reference architecture for intelligent agents that uses service-oriented architecture (SOA) as an exemplar for contracts, registries, loose coupling, and policy-aware integration, while explicitly rejecting the idea that services are agents. It treats microservices as a cautionary precedent: decomposition without design discipline produces distributed complexity, cost, operational fragility, and agent proliferation. We evaluate CEAD over 10,000 enterprise tasks, comparing five architectures: a prompt-first mono-agent, a role-based micro-agent swarm, SOA-brokered agents, a governance-first but design-poor agent grid, and the proposed CEAD architecture. CEAD achieves 70.6% safe success, versus 45.2% for the mono-agent baseline, 23.1% for the ungoverned micro-agent swarm, 58.8% for SOA-brokered agents, and 50.8% for the control-heavy, design-poor grid. The results support the conclusion that design quality is the first-order enterprise concern; governance, security, policy, audit, and assurance should support and enforce good design rather than substitute for it.

Software architecture design is a critical yet inherently complex and knowledge-intensive phase that requires balancing competing quality attributes and adapting to evolving requirements. Traditionally, this process has been time-consuming, labor-intensive, and heavily reliant on architects, often resulting in limited exploration of alternative architectural decompositions and styles, especially under the pressures of agile development. While LLM-based agents have shown promising performance across various software engineering tasks, their application to architecture design remains relatively scarce and requires systematic exploration. To address these challenges, we proposed MAAD (Multi-Agent Architecture Design), a knowledge-driven framework that orchestrates four specialized agents (i.e., Analyst, Modeler, Designer and Evaluator) to autonomously and collaboratively transform requirements specifications into comprehensive, multi-view architectural blueprints with quality attribute assessments. MAAD incorporates RAG to inject recognized architectural standards and patterns into the workflow and leverages a hierarchical memory mechanism that captures design history for iterative refinement. We evaluated MAAD through comparative experiments against MetaGPT, using quantitative architecture-level metrics across 10 case studies and qualitative feedback from industry architects on 10 real-world specifications. Results show that MAAD generates more complete, modular, and traceable architectures than the baseline, and its dedicated Evaluator agent autonomously produces structured quality evaluation reports that significantly reduce manual validation efforts. Furthermore, we found that the quality of the generated architecture heavily depends on the underlying LLM's reasoning capacity, with GPT-5.2 and Qwen3.5 outperforming other models across most evaluation settings.