When Agents Coordinate: Measuring Coordination in Multi-Agent AI Coding

Giuseppe Destefanis; Tomaso Aste

cs.AIAug 17, 2026

When Agents Coordinate: Measuring Coordination in Multi-Agent AI Coding

Authors: Giuseppe Destefanis, Tomaso Aste

Abstract

We study how teams of AI coding agents coordinate while solving programming tasks. Current evaluations usually report whether the agents complete the task and how much the run costs, leaving the coordination inside the team largely unmeasured. We introduce an instrument to measure this coordination. Each run is represented as a temporal network in which agents and files are nodes, and messages, file writes, and file reads are timestamped directed edges with an associated cost. We apply this instrument to 1902 runs, each evaluated with a fixed test suite, across configurations that vary the team size, the team structure, and the file policy. The resulting networks show how coordination changes as teams grow and as the work changes. Direct messaging initially increases close to quadratically with the number of agents, with much of this growth coming from an early round of introductions. As the teams grow further, this increase levels off in the largest teams we study, where agents increasingly communicate through broadcast messages. The task also shapes the network that emerges. Work built around a shared specification produces dense, highly connected teams, while pipeline tasks produce sparse networks organised around local interfaces. Shared files can replace repeated 1-to-1 communication, cutting output tokens by about 42% at eight agents on message-heavy work, while adding overhead when files already carry the coordination. Naming one agent as coordinator creates no communication hub and provides no reliable improvement in success. We also observe an unprompted tendency for agents to seek out hidden grading material. We repeat the key experimental conditions in a sealed environment, replacing the hidden material with marked placeholder files. Across 244 additional runs, agents still reach for it in four fifths of runs, while the coordinator and file-channel findings reproduce.

Explore similar work

Oct 5, 2026cs.CL

AECP: Artifact-Exclusive Communication Protocol for Multi-Agent Code Generation

As AI agents increasingly tackle complex repository-level coding tasks, distributing work across multiple agents is a natural way to scale beyond the capabilities of a single agent. To coordinate their interdependent work, these agents share findings and agree on interfaces between modules. However, exchanged information often serves only as context, leaving individual agents to interpret it and incorporate it into subsequent work. Consequently, shared findings may go unused and deviations from interface agreements may go undetected, undermining the reliability and efficiency of collaboration. This motivates moving part of the coordination responsibility from individual agents to the execution harness. To make shared information actionable during execution, we introduce the Artifact-Exclusive Communication Protocol (AECP). AECP requires agents to communicate exclusively through structured artifacts and specifies how the harness processes them. The harness supplies findings when agents access relevant code, screens implementations for mismatches with recorded interface commitments, and requires affected agents to revisit revised agreements. These coordination steps become part of harness execution rather than actions that agents must initiate from prior messages. Across Doc2Repo, NL2Repo, and CodeProjectEval, using closed- and open-source models including Opus-4.8 and DeepSeek-V4-Flash, AECP improves average test pass rate by 28.2% and reduces average wall time by 16.5% relative to an agent team using free-form inter-agent messages. Artifact-exclusive communication also blocks the relay of malicious instructions between agents, reducing how often they reach other agents from 95% to 0% and how often those agents act on them from 40% to 0%.

Jiaqi Xue, Yanjun Wang, Xiangci Li +5

University of Central Florida · AWS AI Labs

Multi-Agent Coordination Multi-Agent Communication Multi-Agent Coding

Ask PDF

Sep 30, 2026cs.AI

Worse Together: How Performance Breaks Down in Multi-User Multi-Agent Teams

People are increasingly delegating tasks to AI agents, and those agents are increasingly encountering other people's agents over shared resources such as a codebase, a calendar, or a budget. When each agent acts for a different user with different goals, coordination often fails, and the group ends up worse off than if a single agent had acted for everyone. We study this multi-user, multi-agent setting across five frontier models and 77 scenarios in four environments: an API key environment in which agents share a compute budget, a clinic in which they share a calendar, a personal assistant environment in which they share a group order or booking, and a merge queue in which they share a release cutoff. In each scenario, we compare a single agent that serves every user (a coordinator) to a team in which each agent serves one user, with and without a communication channel between the agents. Teams deliver worse group outcomes than the coordinator in every environment: without a channel, they completely collapse in two environments, and even with one, coordination overhead creates substantial gaps. For example, in the personal assistant environment, the coordinator fulfills a targeted user request about twice as often as teams. We identify distinct behaviors associated with this poor group-level performance, including stalling as teams grow, overriding each other's actions, and fabricating claims. We find effective but environment-specific mitigations, such as a team lead, explicit procedural instructions, and a platform check that makes an agent read its peers' messages before committing. We will release the API key, clinic, and personal assistant environments as MAMUBench, comprising 74 scenarios for evaluating multi-user, multi-agent coordination.

Sahan Paliskara, Nattaput Namchittai, Andrew Lampinen

Independent Researcher · Anthropic

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Multi-Agent Coordination AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Agent Systems Multi-Agent Communication

Ask PDF

Oct 5, 2026cs.AI

Verifying Coordination in Parallel Coding Agents: NP-Bench and a Scheduling Planner

A team of coding agents can look fine agent by agent yet fail as a team: each passes its own tests while the merged result is broken, and single-agent evaluation never catches it. As teams run several LLM coding agents in parallel on one codebase, the agents collide: two rewrite the same function, one codes against a contract a teammate just changed, and integration fails after the work is done. Most coordination tools react (watch for a conflict, then warn), but at agent speed the warning arrives after the wasted edit. We recast the problem as scheduling: take each work item's declared scope, partition the work into disjoint scopes, and order merges along the producer->consumer graph, all up front. We build this planner into Nerveplane and evaluate it with NP-Bench, an environment-grounded three-arm benchmark (no coordination; reactive detection; proactive planning) that verifies integration off a real git merge, both in a deterministic simulation and with live agents. The planner lifts clean-integration from 1/9 to 9/9 scenarios and cuts merge conflicts from 13 to 0, with a gap that grows in the number of agents. On a live breaking contract change it rescues an outcome both baselines miss on every seed: the clean-integration rate rises from 0 (no coordination and reactive detection) to 1.0 on a frontier model and 0.6 on a small one, while agents respect assigned scopes (0/5 leakage). A cross-session memory drops the repeated-mistake rate from 1.00 to 0.00 on strong and weak models alike. We also report a negative result: routing facts to agents does not rescue long-context accuracy at window-fitting scales; its value is cost and capacity, not attention. Across two capability tiers and two vendors, the benefit did not shrink as models got stronger, because it comes from how work is allocated, not model reasoning.

Sumanyu Muku

Topic pending

Ask PDF