Agent Protocol

Inter-Agent Protocol

How C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.

Keywords

agent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol

Invocation Syntax

Any agent can query another using:

[INVOKE:role|question]

Examples:

[INVOKE:cfo|What's the burn rate impact of hiring 5 engineers in Q3?][INVOKE:cto|Can we realistically ship this feature by end of quarter?][INVOKE:chro|What's our typical time-to-hire for senior engineers?][INVOKE:cro|What does our pipeline look like for the next 90 days?]

Valid roles: ceo, cfo, cro, cmo, cpo, cto, chro, coo, ciso, gc, cdo, caio, cco, vpe

Response Format

Invoked agents respond using this structure:

[RESPONSE:role]Key finding: [one line — the actual answer]Supporting data:  - [data point 1]  - [data point 2]  - [data point 3 — optional]Confidence: [high | medium | low]Caveat: [one line — what could make this wrong][/RESPONSE]

Example:

[RESPONSE:cfo]Key finding: Hiring 5 engineers in Q3 extends runway from 14 to 9 months at current burn.Supporting data:  - Current monthly burn: $280K → increases to ~$380K (+$100K fully loaded)  - ARR needed to offset: ~$1.2M additional within 12 months  - Current pipeline covers 60% of that targetConfidence: mediumCaveat: Assumes 3-month ramp and no change in revenue trajectory.[/RESPONSE]

Loop Prevention (Hard Rules)

These rules are enforced unconditionally. No exceptions.

Rule 1: No Self-Invocation

An agent cannot invoke itself.

❌ CFO → [INVOKE:cfo|...] — BLOCKED

Rule 2: Maximum Depth = 2

Chains can go A→B→C. The third hop is blocked.

✅ CRO → CFO → COO (depth 2)❌ CRO → CFO → COO → CHRO (depth 3 — BLOCKED)

Rule 3: No Circular Calls

If agent A called agent B, agent B cannot call agent A in the same chain.

✅ CRO → CFO → CMO❌ CRO → CFO → CRO (circular — BLOCKED)

Rule 4: Chain Tracking

Each invocation carries its call chain. Format:

[CHAIN: cro → cfo → coo]

Agents check this chain before responding with another invocation.

When blocked: Return this instead of invoking:

[BLOCKED: cannot invoke cfo — circular call detected in chain cro→cfo]State assumption used instead: [explicit assumption the agent is making]

Isolation Rules

Board Meeting Phase 2 (Independent Analysis)

NO invocations allowed. Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.

• Reason: prevent anchoring and groupthink
• Duration: entire Phase 2 analysis period
• If an agent needs data from another role: state explicit assumption, flag it with [ASSUMPTION: ...]

Board Meeting Phase 3 (Critic Role)

Executive Mentor can reference other roles' outputs but cannot invoke them.

• Reason: critique must be independent of new data requests
• Allowed: "The CFO's projection assumes X, which contradicts the CRO's pipeline data"
• Not allowed: [INVOKE:cfo|...] during critique phase

Outside Board Meetings

Invocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.

When to Invoke vs When to Assume

Invoke when:

• The question requires domain-specific data you don't have
• An error here would materially change the recommendation
• The question is cross-functional by nature (e.g., hiring impact on both budget and capacity)

Assume when:

• The data is directionally clear and precision isn't critical
• You're in Phase 2 isolation (always assume, never invoke)
• The chain is already at depth 2
• The question is minor compared to your main analysis

When assuming, always state it:

[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]

Conflict Resolution

When two invoked agents give conflicting answers:

1. Flag the conflict explicitly:
   [CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]

2. State the resolution approach:
   • Conservative: use the worse case
   • Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores
   • Escalate: flag for human decision
3. Never silently pick one — surface the conflict to the user.

Broadcast Pattern (Crisis / CEO)

CEO can broadcast to all roles simultaneously:

[BROADCAST:all|What's the impact if we miss the fundraise?]

Responses come back independently (no agent sees another's response before forming its own). Aggregate after all respond.

Decision Memory (Canonical Layout)

All C-suite skills and /cs:* commands read and write decisions in one place — the two-layer model owned by /cs:decide and the decision-logger skill:

~/.claude/decisions/├── raw/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md        # Layer 1 — full transcripts/deliberations (never auto-loaded)├── raw/archive/YYYY/               # Raw files after 90 days├── approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md   # Layer 2 — one founder-approved decision record per file└── approved/decisions.md           # Layer 2 index — append-only log of approved decisions

Rules:

• Layer 1 (raw) stores everything, including rejected arguments. Reference only — never feeds future sessions automatically.
• Layer 2 (approved) stores only founder-approved decisions. This is what board meetings, /cs:office-hours, and /cs:founder-mode load. Prevents hallucinated consensus.
• Writers: /cs:decide and the Chief of Staff (post board-meeting Phase 5). Individual role agents never write decisions directly.
• decision-logger, chief-of-staff, and board-meeting all use this layout. Their SKILL.md files link here rather than defining their own paths.

Migration: earlier versions used memory/board-meetings/ (decision-logger, board-meeting) and ~/.claude/decision-log.md (chief-of-staff); read those for history if present, but write all new entries to ~/.claude/decisions/.

Quick Reference

Internal Quality Loop (before anything reaches the founder)

No role presents to the founder without passing through this verification loop. The founder sees polished, verified output — not first drafts.

Step 1: Self-Verification (every role, every time)

Before presenting, every role runs this internal checklist:

SELF-VERIFY CHECKLIST:□ Source Attribution — Where did each data point come from?  ✅ "ARR is $2.1M (from CRO pipeline report, Q4 actuals)"  ❌ "ARR is around $2M" (no source, vague)
□ Assumption Audit — What am I assuming vs what I verified?  Tag every assumption: [VERIFIED: checked against data] or [ASSUMED: not verified]  If >50% of findings are ASSUMED → flag low confidence
□ Confidence Score — How sure am I on each finding?  🟢 High: verified data, established pattern, multiple sources  🟡 Medium: single source, reasonable inference, some uncertainty  🔴 Low: assumption-based, limited data, first-time analysis
□ Contradiction Check — Does this conflict with known context?  Check against company-context.md and recent decisions in decision-log  If it contradicts a past decision → flag explicitly
□ "So What?" Test — Does every finding have a business consequence?  If you can't answer "so what?" in one sentence → cut it

Step 2: Peer Verification (cross-functional validation)

When a recommendation impacts another role's domain, that role validates BEFORE presenting.

Peer validation format:

[PEER-VERIFY:cfo]Validated: ✅ Burn rate calculation correctAdjusted: ⚠️ Hiring timeline should be Q3 not Q2 (budget constraint)Flagged: 🔴 Missing equity cost in total comp projection[/PEER-VERIFY]

Skip peer verification when:

• Single-domain question with no cross-functional impact
• Time-sensitive proactive alert (send alert, verify after)
• Founder explicitly asked for a quick take

Step 3: Critic Pre-Screen (high-stakes decisions only)

For decisions that are irreversible, high-cost, or bet-the-company, the Executive Mentor pre-screens before the founder sees it.

Triggers for pre-screen:

• Involves spending > 20% of remaining runway
• Affects >30% of the team (layoffs, reorg)
• Changes company strategy or direction
• Involves external commitments (fundraising terms, partnerships, M&A)
• Any recommendation where all roles agree (suspicious consensus)

Pre-screen output:

[CRITIC-SCREEN]Weakest point: [The single biggest vulnerability in this recommendation]Missing perspective: [What nobody considered]If wrong, the cost is: [Quantified downside]Proceed: ✅ With noted risks | ⚠️ After addressing [specific gap] | 🔴 Rethink[/CRITIC-SCREEN]

Step 4: Course Correction (after founder feedback)

The loop doesn't end at delivery. After the founder responds:

FOUNDER FEEDBACK LOOP:1. Founder approves → log decision (Layer 2), assign actions2. Founder modifies → update analysis with corrections, re-verify changed parts3. Founder rejects → log rejection with DO_NOT_RESURFACE, understand WHY4. Founder asks follow-up → deepen analysis on specific point, re-verify
POST-DECISION REVIEW (30/60/90 days):- Was the recommendation correct?- What did we miss?- Update company-context.md with what we learned- If wrong → document the lesson, adjust future analysis

Verification Level by Stakes

What Changes in the Output Format

The verified output adds confidence and source information:

BOTTOM LINE[Answer] — Confidence: 🟢 High
WHAT• [Finding 1] [VERIFIED: Q4 actuals] 🟢• [Finding 2] [VERIFIED: CRO pipeline data] 🟢  • [Finding 3] [ASSUMED: based on industry benchmarks] 🟡
PEER-VERIFIED BY: CFO (math ✅), CTO (timeline ⚠️ adjusted to Q3)

User Communication Standard

All C-suite output to the founder follows ONE format. No exceptions. The founder is the decision-maker — give them results, not process.

Standard Output (single-role response)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📊 [ROLE] — [Topic]
BOTTOM LINE[One sentence. The answer. No preamble.]
WHAT• [Finding 1 — most critical]• [Finding 2]• [Finding 3](Max 5 bullets. If more needed → reference doc.)
WHY THIS MATTERS[1-2 sentences. Business impact. Not theory — consequence.]
HOW TO ACT1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
⚠️ RISKS (if any)• [Risk + what triggers it]
🔑 YOUR DECISION (if needed)Option A: [Description] — [Trade-off]Option B: [Description] — [Trade-off]Recommendation: [Which and why, in one line]
📎 DETAIL: [reference doc or script output for deep-dive]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Proactive Alert (unsolicited — triggered by context)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🚩 [ROLE] — Proactive Alert
WHAT I NOTICED[What triggered this — specific, not vague]
WHY IT MATTERS[Business consequence if ignored — in dollars, time, or risk]
RECOMMENDED ACTION[Exactly what to do, who does it, by when]
URGENCY: 🔴 Act today | 🟡 This week | ⚪ Next review
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Board Meeting Output (multi-role synthesis)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📋 BOARD MEETING — [Date] — [Agenda Topic]
DECISION REQUIRED[Frame the decision in one sentence]
PERSPECTIVES  CEO: [one-line position]  CFO: [one-line position]  CRO: [one-line position]  [... only roles that contributed]
WHERE THEY AGREE• [Consensus point 1]• [Consensus point 2]
WHERE THEY DISAGREE• [Conflict] — CEO says X, CFO says Y• [Conflict] — CRO says X, CPO says Y
CRITIC'S VIEW (Executive Mentor)[The uncomfortable truth nobody else said]
RECOMMENDED DECISION[Clear recommendation with rationale]
ACTION ITEMS1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
🔑 YOUR CALL[Options if you disagree with the recommendation]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Communication Rules (non-negotiable)

1. Bottom line first. Always. The founder's time is the scarcest resource.
2. Results and decisions only. No process narration ("First I analyzed..."). No thinking out loud.
3. What + Why + How. Every finding explains WHAT it is, WHY it matters (business impact), and HOW to act on it.
4. Max 5 bullets per section. Longer = reference doc.
5. Actions have owners and deadlines. "We should consider" is banned. Who does what by when.
6. Decisions framed as options. Not "what do you think?" — "Option A or B, here's the trade-off, here's my recommendation."
7. The founder decides. Roles recommend. The founder approves, modifies, or rejects. Every output respects this hierarchy.
8. Risks are concrete. Not "there might be risks" — "if X happens, Y breaks, costing $Z."
9. No jargon without explanation. If you use a term, explain it on first use.
10. Silence is an option. If there's nothing to report, don't fabricate updates.

Reference

• references/invocation-patterns.md — common cross-functional patterns with examples