moa-team-orchestration（MOA 团队编排）

Agent Team Orchestration

Production playbook for running multi-agent teams with clear roles, structured task flow, and quality gates.

Quick Start: Minimal 2-Agent Team

A builder and a reviewer. The simplest useful team.

1. Define Roles

Orchestrator (you) — Route tasks, track state, report results
Builder agent     — Execute work, produce artifacts

2. Spawn a Task

1. Create task record (file, DB, or task board)
2. Spawn builder with:
   - Task ID and description
   - Output path for artifacts
   - Handoff instructions (what to produce, where to put it)
3. On completion: review artifacts, mark done, report

3. Add a Reviewer

Builder produces artifact → Reviewer checks it → Orchestrator ships or returns

That's the core loop. Everything below scales this pattern.

Core Concepts

Roles

Every agent has one primary role. Overlap causes confusion.

→ *Read references/team-setup.md when defining a new team or adding agents.*

Task States

Every task moves through a defined lifecycle:

Inbox → Assigned → In Progress → Review → Done | Failed

Rules:

• Orchestrator owns state transitions — don't rely on agents to update their own status
• Every transition gets a comment (who, what, why)
• Failed is a valid end state — capture why and move on

→ *Read references/task-lifecycle.md when designing task flows or debugging stuck tasks.*

Handoffs

When work passes between agents, the handoff message includes:

1. What was done — summary of changes/output
2. Where artifacts are — exact file paths
3. How to verify — test commands or acceptance criteria
4. Known issues — anything incomplete or risky
5. What's next — clear next action for the receiving agent

Bad handoff: *"Done, check the files."* Good handoff: *"Built auth module at /shared/artifacts/auth/. Run npm test auth to verify. Known issue: rate limiting not implemented yet. Next: reviewer checks error handling edge cases."*

Reviews

Cross-role reviews prevent quality drift:

• Builders review specs — "Is this feasible? What's missing?"
• Reviewers check builds — "Does this match the spec? Edge cases?"
• Orchestrator reviews priorities — "Is this the right work right now?"

Skip the review step and quality degrades within 3-5 tasks. Every time.

→ *Read references/communication.md when setting up agent communication channels.* → *Read references/patterns.md for proven multi-step workflows.*

Reference Files

Common Pitfalls

Spawning without clear artifact output paths

Agent produces great work, but you can't find it. Always specify the exact output path in the spawn prompt. Use a shared artifacts directory with predictable structure.

No review step = quality drift

"It's a small change, skip review." Do this three times and you have compounding errors. Every artifact gets at least one set of eyes that didn't produce it.

Agents not commenting on task progress

Silent agents create coordination blind spots. Require comments at: start, blocker, handoff, completion. If an agent goes silent, assume it's stuck.

Not verifying agent capabilities before assigning

Assigning browser-based testing to an agent without browser access. Assigning image work to a text-only model. Check capabilities before routing.

Orchestrator doing execution work

The orchestrator routes and tracks — it doesn't build. The moment you start "just quickly doing this one thing," you've lost oversight of the rest of the team.

When NOT to Use This Skill

• Single-agent setups — Just follow standard AGENTS.md conventions. Team orchestration adds overhead that solo agents don't need.
• One-off task delegation — Use sessions_spawn directly. This skill is for sustained workflows with multiple handoffs.
• Simple question routing — If you're just forwarding a question to a specialist, that's a message, not a workflow.

This skill is for sustained team workflows — recurring collaboration patterns where agents depend on each other's output over multiple tasks.