Conflict Resolution

Agents Will Disagree — That's a Feature

Give two agents the same data and different system prompts, and they'll reach different conclusions. Your research agent says the market is growing. Your risk agent says the data is unreliable. Your writer produces a confident draft. Your editor says it needs a complete rewrite.

This isn't a bug. In fact, if your agents always agree, that's a sign they're not specialized enough. Conflict is the system checking its own work. The key is having a strategy to resolve it.

Hierarchical Override

One agent has final authority. When agents conflict, the designated authority makes the call. Simple and fast. The orchestrator agent is the natural choice — it has the broadest context and the mandate to make decisions.

Best for: Time-sensitive systems, clear chain of command, when one agent genuinely has better judgment for the decision.

Risk: The authority agent might consistently override valuable dissent. Important signals get silenced.

Voting and Consensus

Multiple agents weigh in, and the majority wins. You can run three instances of the same agent with different temperatures, or have three different specialist agents evaluate the same question. If two out of three agree, that's the answer.

Best for: High-stakes decisions where accuracy matters more than speed. Fact-checking, classification, risk assessment.

Risk: Expensive — you're running multiple agents for one decision. Majority isn't always right.

Debate and Synthesis

Conflicting agents present their positions to a synthesis agent. The synthesizer doesn't just pick a winner — it integrates the best elements of each position into a stronger output. This mirrors how real teams work: debate produces better ideas than any individual contribution.

Best for: Creative work, strategy, any domain where combining perspectives adds value.

Risk: The synthesizer might produce wishy-washy compromises instead of sharp decisions.