Declarative by Design, Assistable Only by Convention: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Frameworks for AI-Assistability

The rapid proliferation of Agent Development Kits (ADKs), SDK-level frameworks for building LLM-powered autonomous agents, has outpaced any empirical understanding of how framework choice affects agent performance. We propose \textbf{LLM-as-a-Developer}, a methodology that replaces human developers with an LLM coding agent that learns each framework's API from documentation, writes agent code, and iteratively repairs it through a validate-and-feedback loop until tests pass. By holding the developer constant and varying only the framework, generation effort becomes a quantitative proxy for API usability and the resulting agents provide a controlled measure of framework effectiveness. We implement this in \textbf{ADK Arena}, a fully automated pipeline with per-framework Docker isolation, a three-level validation pipeline, and benchmark adapters for SWE-bench, $τ^2$-bench, Terminal-Bench, and MCP-Atlas. Evaluating all 51 popular Python ADK frameworks (204 agent--benchmark pairs), we find that: (1)~generation succeeds for 57% of runs, and its cost varies 5.6$\times$ across frameworks ($0.6 to $3.4 per agent), a quantitative proxy for API complexity, though cost alone does not predict success; (2)~no single framework dominates: the best single-benchmark ADK agents resolve up to 80% of tasks and can even \emph{beat} general-purpose frontier coding agents at a fraction of the cost, yet the median framework resolves only 32%; (3)~across information-source ablations, genuine framework usage stays within a narrow 28--40% band (highest with raw source access and still 33% with no reference material at all), indicating that documentation, source code, and parametric knowledge are largely substitutable rather than any one being a hard bottleneck.

Multi-agent LLM frameworks are data-intensive systems that govern how agents orchestrate tasks, manage state, and coordinate decisions. These architectural choices control execution overhead, memory behavior, planning effectiveness, and coordination scalability. Their impact on system performance remains poorly understood. Existing benchmarks evaluate individual agent capabilities in isolation and lack standardized framework-level comparison. We make four contributions. We introduce an architectural taxonomy that decomposes multi-agent LLM frameworks along five dimensions: orchestration, memory, planning interfaces, specialization, and communication topology. We develop MAFBench, a unified evaluation suite that integrates existing benchmarks within a standardized execution pipeline. We conduct a controlled empirical study across nine frameworks, fixing the underlying LLM and varying only architectural design choices. We distill the results into six evidence-based design principles. Architectural design, not only model intelligence, governs performance. Orchestration alone increases latency by over 60x, and a minimal implementation of the same paradigm isolates that cost as implementation rather than paradigm. Schema-constrained planning interfaces reduce accuracy by up to 32 points through formatting failures, not reasoning errors. Communication topology drops coordination success from above 90% to below 30% under mismatched structure. Memory architecture controls recall and scalability independent of context window size, and no evaluated framework natively supports controlled knowledge revision.

Multi-agent large language model(LLM)systems are applied to structural design,yet most use one-shot generation and cannot verify their output,leaving themill-suited to safety-critical tasks.Rather than trusting LLM self-correction,thisframework injects feedback from an external physics-based verier into a closedrepair loop.The framework couples a three-layernite-element verication systemwith a dual-node loop.Node 1 turns code violations into hard repair constraints,Node 2 turns a four-dimensional quality score into safety-rst soft constraints,and a retrieval-augmented code base makes every violation traceable to a clause.Overve structure types and 44 cases,code compliance rises from 56.8%to 98.6%and the composite score from 63.8 to 71.4(p<0.000001),using about 5.8%lessmaterial.Removing either node degrades performance,and compliance does notchange detectably across the two backbone LLMs tested,indicating that it ishere attributed to the external verier rather than the model.The framework,the 44-case benchmark and all experiment scripts are released as open source forreplicability.