When a single AI agent isn’t enough, you need multiple agents working together. But how should they coordinate? The answer shapes everything from system reliability to cost efficiency. This deep dive explores the three dominant patterns for multi-agent collaboration—hierarchical, peer-to-peer, and hybrid—with practical guidance on when to use each.
Single agents hit limits. They struggle with tasks requiring diverse expertise, can’t easily parallelize work, and become unwieldy when handling complex multi-step workflows. Multi-agent systems address these challenges by dividing work among specialized agents.
The benefits are significant:
But coordination introduces complexity. Agents need to communicate, share context, handle conflicts, and maintain coherent overall behavior. The collaboration pattern you choose determines how these challenges are addressed.
In hierarchical systems, a central orchestrator agent directs the work of subordinate agents. Think of it like a manager delegating tasks to team members.
The orchestrator receives the initial task, breaks it into subtasks, assigns them to specialized agents, collects results, and synthesizes the final output. Subordinate agents typically don’t communicate directly with each other—all coordination flows through the orchestrator.
class HierarchicalOrchestrator:
def __init__(self, llm, specialist_agents: dict):
self.llm = llm
self.specialists = specialist_agents
async def execute(self, task: str) -> str:
# Orchestrator decomposes the task
plan = await self.llm.invoke(f"""
Break this task into subtasks and assign each to
a specialist: {list(self.specialists.keys())}
Task: {task}
""")
# Execute subtasks through specialists
results = {}
for subtask in plan.subtasks:
agent = self.specialists[subtask.assigned_to]
results[subtask.id] = await agent.execute(subtask.description)
# Orchestrator synthesizes results
final = await self.llm.invoke(f"""
Synthesize these results into a final response:
{results}
""")
return final
Clear accountability: The orchestrator maintains global state and ensures tasks complete. There’s no ambiguity about who’s in charge.
Easier debugging: All decisions flow through one point, creating a clear trace of what happened and why.
Controlled resource usage: The orchestrator can manage token budgets, rate limits, and parallel execution across all agents.
Natural task decomposition: Complex tasks naturally break into tree structures—research, then analyze, then synthesize.
Single point of failure: If the orchestrator fails or makes poor decisions, the entire system suffers.
Bottleneck at scale: All communication flows through one agent, which can become overwhelmed.
Limited emergent behavior: Subordinates can’t discover better approaches through direct collaboration.
Orchestrator complexity: The coordinating agent needs to understand all specialist capabilities.
OpenAI’s ChatGPT with tools follows a hierarchical pattern—the main model orchestrates calls to code interpreter, browsing, and DALL-E.
LangGraph’s supervisor pattern explicitly implements hierarchical orchestration with a supervisor agent routing to worker agents.
In peer-to-peer systems, agents communicate directly with each other without a central coordinator. Each agent operates autonomously, negotiating and collaborating as needed.
Agents maintain awareness of other agents’ capabilities and can request assistance directly. Collaboration emerges from many bilateral interactions rather than top-down direction.
class PeerAgent:
def __init__(self, name: str, capabilities: list, llm, peer_registry):
self.name = name
self.capabilities = capabilities
self.llm = llm
self.peers = peer_registry
async def execute(self, task: str) -> str:
# Determine if we can handle this or need help
analysis = await self.llm.invoke(f"""
Task: {task}
My capabilities: {self.capabilities}
Available peers: {self.peers.list_capabilities()}
Can I handle this alone? If not, which peer should I consult?
""")
if analysis.needs_peer:
peer = self.peers.get(analysis.peer_name)
peer_result = await peer.consult(task, self.name)
return await self._integrate_peer_input(task, peer_result)
return await self._execute_solo(task)
async def consult(self, request: str, requester: str) -> str:
# Handle incoming request from another peer
return await self.llm.invoke(f"""
{requester} is asking for help with: {request}
Provide your expertise.
""")
Resilience: No single point of failure—if one agent goes down, others continue operating.
Scalability: New agents can join without modifying a central orchestrator.
Emergent solutions: Agents can discover novel collaboration patterns through direct interaction.
Reduced latency: Direct communication avoids round-trips through a coordinator.
Coordination overhead: Agents spend tokens deciding who to consult and negotiating.
Potential for conflicts: Without central authority, agents may pursue conflicting approaches.
Harder to debug: Tracing execution through peer-to-peer interactions is complex.
Discovery challenges: Agents need mechanisms to find peers with relevant capabilities.
AutoGen’s group chat enables multiple agents to converse directly, with each deciding when to contribute.
Distributed robotics often uses peer-to-peer coordination for swarm behaviors.
Most production systems combine hierarchical and peer-to-peer elements. A hybrid architecture uses orchestrators where control matters while allowing peer communication where flexibility benefits.
Hierarchical with peer consultation: An orchestrator assigns tasks, but specialists can consult each other before reporting back.
class HybridOrchestrator:
def __init__(self, llm, specialist_teams: dict):
self.llm = llm
self.teams = specialist_teams # Teams can collaborate internally
async def execute(self, task: str) -> str:
plan = await self.decompose(task)
results = {}
for subtask in plan.subtasks:
team = self.teams[subtask.team_name]
# Team internally uses peer collaboration
results[subtask.id] = await team.collaborate(subtask)
return await self.synthesize(results)
Federated orchestration: Multiple orchestrators coordinate peer-to-peer while each managing their own hierarchy of specialists.
Market-based allocation: Agents bid on tasks, combining peer negotiation with eventual assignment.
Best of both worlds: Central coordination where needed, flexible collaboration elsewhere.
Pragmatic: Matches the reality that some tasks need oversight while others benefit from autonomy.
Incremental adoption: Can start hierarchical and add peer elements as the system matures.
Complexity: Two coordination mechanisms to implement and maintain.
Potential confusion: Agents may be uncertain when to escalate vs. collaborate directly.
Consider these factors when selecting a collaboration pattern:
Regardless of pattern, several concerns apply:
Message passing: Define clear protocols for agent communication. Include task context, expected output format, and error handling.
State management: Decide where shared state lives—central store, passed in messages, or distributed across agents.
Termination conditions: Multi-agent systems can loop indefinitely. Set clear completion criteria and timeout limits.
Cost control: Multiple agents multiply API costs. Implement budgets, caching, and selective retrieval.
Observability: Log agent interactions thoroughly. You’ll need this for debugging and optimization.
Major frameworks offer primitives for each pattern:
| Framework | Hierarchical | Peer-to-Peer | Hybrid |
|---|---|---|---|
| LangGraph | Supervisor pattern | Graph-based routing | Subgraphs |
| AutoGen | AssistantAgent chains | GroupChat | Custom topologies |
| CrewAI | Sequential process | Hierarchical with delegation | Mixed processes |
Multi-agent collaboration is still a rapidly evolving field. The patterns described here provide starting points, but expect to iterate as you learn what works for your specific domain and scale. Start simple—often a straightforward hierarchical design handles most needs—then add complexity as genuine requirements emerge.
For framework-specific implementations of these patterns, see our AutoGen vs CrewAI comparison, get hands-on with LangGraph, or explore detailed guides in our Framework Deep Dive series. For terminology reference, see the AI Agents Glossary.
Master multi-agent orchestration in Claude Code with the Task tool. Learn how to run parallel subagents, delegate work effectively, and build powerful development workflows that multiply your AI coding capabilities
This week's roundup covers the growing MCP ecosystem, Microsoft's agent orchestration updates, and new open source tools for agent development
A technical deep dive into how AI agents handle memory, exploring the architecture behind short-term context, long-term knowledge storage, and episodic recall—with implementation patterns for building memory-aware agents