comeonoliver/skillshub/agent-protocol

Name: agent-protocol
Author: comeonoliver

Claude Code and agent skill by comeonoliver/skillshub

Trust tier 3

community

By comeonoliver
Coding
comeonoliver/skillshub
skills/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/agent-protocol/SKILL.md
Updated 4 Oct 2026
Version 1.0.01 version recorded

Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.

Install

npx vskill@latest install comeonoliver/skillshub/agent-protocol

SKILL.md

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

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 target
Confidence: medium
Caveat: 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:

Flag the conflict explicitly:

`` [CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months] ``

State the resolution approach:

Conservative: use the worse case
Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores
Escalate: flag for human decision

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.

Quick Reference

Rule	Behavior
Self-invoke	❌ Always blocked
Depth > 2	❌ Blocked, state assumption
Circular	❌ Blocked, state assumption
Phase 2 isolation	❌ No invocations
Phase 3 critique	❌ Reference only, no invoke
Conflict	✅ Surface it, don't hide it
Assumption	✅ Always explicit with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]`

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.

If your recommendation involves...	Validate with...	They check...
Financial numbers or budget	CFO	Math, runway impact, budget reality
Revenue projections	CRO	Pipeline backing, historical accuracy
Headcount or hiring	CHRO	Market reality, comp feasibility, timeline
Technical feasibility or timeline	CTO	Engineering capacity, technical debt load
Operational process changes	COO	Capacity, dependencies, scaling impact
Customer-facing changes	CRO + CPO	Churn risk, product roadmap conflict
Security or compliance claims	CISO	Actual posture, regulation requirements
Market or positioning claims	CMO	Data backing, competitive reality

Peer validation format:

[PEER-VERIFY:cfo]
Validated: ✅ Burn rate calculation correct
Adjusted: ⚠️ 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 actions
2. Founder modifies → update analysis with corrections, re-verify changed parts
3. Founder rejects → log rejection with DO_NOT_RESURFACE, understand WHY
4. 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

Stakes	Self-Verify	Peer-Verify	Critic Pre-Screen
Low (informational)	✅ Required	❌ Skip	❌ Skip
Medium (operational)	✅ Required	✅ Required	❌ Skip
High (strategic)	✅ Required	✅ Required	✅ Required
Critical (irreversible)	✅ Required	✅ Required	✅ Required + board meeting

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 ACT
1. [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 ITEMS
1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]

This is the start of the file. Read the full SKILL.md on GitHub.

Security

Security scanPassed, 95 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
Model reviewPassed

See the full security report

Quality evaluation

Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

See evaluation results

Source

SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/agent-protocol/SKILL.md

Popularity

Repository stars: 66
Repository forks: 24
7-day trend score: 26

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

Claude Code
Cursor
GitHub Copilot
Windsurf
Codex
Gemini CLI
Cline
Amp
Roo Code
Goose
Continue
Kilo Code
Junie
Trae
OpenHands
Qwen Code
AI Agent
Tabnine Chat
Sourcegraph Cody
Amazon Q
Firebase Genkit
Sweep
Devin
Phind
Mentat
Claude Desktop
Aider
GPT Pilot
Plandex
bolt.new
v0
Replit Agent
Anse
TypingMind
BetterChatGPT
LibreChat
Warp AI
Pieces
Fig AI

Embed badge

[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/comeonoliver/skillshub/agent-protocol/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/comeonoliver/skillshub/agent-protocol)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.