OrgAgent: Organize Your Multi-Agent System like a Company

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems are increasingly applied across diverse domains, yet different applications require different forms of agent organization. Existing studies typically adopt predefined organizations, such as Star, Chain, and Tree, or learn communication graphs to improve performance on specific tasks. However, these methods are largely designed and evaluated within a limited set of application domains, providing little understanding of whether an organization effective in one domain remains suitable for others with different collaboration requirements. We present OpenDGO, a controlled benchmark and analysis framework covering six real-world domains and three collaboration settings: Sequential Dependency, Parallel Decomposition, and Information Integration. Under matched tasks, agents, tools, and resource limits, OpenDGO compares fixed and learned organizations while separately examining communication graphs, role assignments, input assignments, resource budgets, and component failures. Our results show that there is no ``one-organization-for-all'' solution: preferred organizations vary across applications, and even the same communication graph can yield different outcomes under different role and input assignments. These findings highlight the need for application-dependent organization design, aiming to understand which organization is suitable for a given application, under what conditions, and why.

Individual agent capabilities have advanced rapidly through modular skills and tool integrations, yet multi-agent systems remain constrained by fixed team structures, tightly coupled coordination logic, and session-bound learning. We argue that this reflects a deeper absence: a principled organisational layer that governs how a workforce of agents is assembled, governed, and improved over time, decoupled from what individual agents know. To fill this gap, we introduce OneManCompany (OMC), a framework that elevates multi-agent systems to the organisational level. OMC encapsulates skills, tools, and runtime configurations into portable agent identities called Talents, orchestrated through typed organisational interfaces that abstract over heterogeneous backends. A community-driven Talent Market enables on-demand recruitment, allowing the organisation to close capability gaps and reconfigure itself dynamically during execution. Organisational decision-making is operationalised through an Explore-Execute-Review ($\text{E}^2$R) tree search, which unifies planning, execution, and evaluation in a single hierarchical loop: tasks are decomposed top-down into accountable units and execution outcomes are aggregated bottom-up to drive systematic review and refinement. This loop provides formal guarantees on termination and deadlock freedom while mirroring the feedback mechanisms of human enterprises. Together, these contributions transform multi-agent systems from static, pre-configured pipelines into self-organising and self-improving AI organisations capable of adapting to open-ended tasks across diverse domains. Empirical evaluation on PRDBench shows that OMC achieves an $84.67\%$ success rate, surpassing the state of the art by $15.48$ percentage points, with cross-domain case studies further demonstrating its generality.

Multi-agent frameworks built on large language models (LLMs) routinely entangle three logically distinct concerns: who is on the team (organization), how members align (coordination), and which algorithm fuses their work (collaboration protocol). IMACS (Intelligent Multi-Agent Collaboration System) separates the three into orthogonal, independently swappable layers. Classic organizational theory (Belbin roles, Mintzberg coordination, RACI accountability) becomes executable, validated configuration, and the framework places six published collaboration algorithms behind a common interface while exposing roles, coordination, and accountability as independently configurable factors. We use this separation to conduct controlled comparisons in which organizational assignments vary while the collaboration protocol is held fixed. It also turns protocol choice into a variable that can be learned: Adaptive Org Routing, a contextual-bandit meta-protocol, selects a protocol per task under an explicit quality-cost tradeoff, outperforms every fixed protocol in a controlled study, and trains online on real benchmark and LLM-judge rewards. The ablations expose a mechanism. Accountability placement changes outcomes exactly when the protocol routes the deliverable through the accountable agent, and the winning placement flips across model families, so organizational design cannot be hard-coded; it must be revalidated, or learned, for each model binding.