feat: add executable Tier 2 Agent Teams patterns

templates/skills/maxsim-batch/SKILL.md

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ When all agents complete:
 
 Agent Teams (available since Claude Code v2.1.32, Feb 2026) enable inter-agent communication for workflows that require debate, cross-checking, or collaborative problem-solving. MaxsimCLI sets `CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1` during install and registers `TeammateIdle` and `TaskCompleted` quality-gate hooks.
 
-**Current status:** Infrastructure is in place (env var, hooks). Workflow templates that invoke `TeamCreate`/`SendMessage` for Tier 2 patterns (competitive implementation, multi-reviewer code review, collaborative debugging) are planned but not yet implemented. All workflows currently use Tier 1 subagents. See PROJECT.md §7.2 for the full specification.
+**Current status:** Infrastructure is in place (env var, hooks). Tier 2 workflow patterns (competitive implementation, multi-reviewer code review, collaborative debugging) are defined below with executable `TeamCreate`/`SendMessage` call syntax. All workflows gracefully degrade to Tier 1 subagents when Agent Teams are unavailable. See PROJECT.md §7.2 for the authoritative specification.
 
 ### Tier Selection Logic
 
@@ -103,19 +103,332 @@ MaxsimCLI chooses the tier automatically based on the workflow:
 | Collaborative debugging | Tier 2 (Agent Teams) | Hypotheses need adversarial testing |
 | Architecture exploration | Tier 2 (Agent Teams) | Requires discussion |
 
-**When Tier 2 is ready, it will be used for:**
-- Competitive implementation with adversarial debate
-- Multi-dimensional code review (security + performance + test coverage)
-- Collaborative debugging with competing hypotheses
-- Cross-layer feature work (frontend + backend + tests)
+### Tier 2 Activation Check
+
+Before using any Tier 2 pattern, verify availability:
+
+```bash
+# 1. Check env var
+[ "$CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS" = "1" ] || { echo "Tier 2 unavailable: env var not set"; TIER=1; }
+```
+
+```
+# 2. Probe TeamCreate (lightweight -- create and immediately clean up)
+TeamCreate(team_name: "probe-{timestamp}", description: "availability check")
+# If probe fails, set TIER=1 and log reason
+```
+
+If either check fails, skip to the Graceful Degradation section below. Do not attempt Tier 2 patterns.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 1 -- Competitive Implementation (Debate)
+
+**Use when:** A task is marked `critical` and `config.execution.competitive_enabled` is `true`. Multiple agents implement the same task independently, then adversarially critique each other's work before a neutral verifier selects the winner.
+
+**Flow:** `TeamCreate` --> spawn 2-3 competitors --> each implements independently --> `SendMessage` critiques --> fresh verifier judges --> winner selected.
+
+**Step 1 -- Create the competition team:**
+```
+TeamCreate(
+  team_name: "competition-phase-{N}-task-{id}",
+  description: "Competitive implementation: {task_description}. Each teammate implements independently, then reviews the others adversarially."
+)
+```
+
+**Step 2 -- Spawn competing teammates:**
+Spawn 2 teammates minimum, 3 for tasks labeled `critical`. Each gets a distinct approach directive and the full task context.
+
+```
+// Teammate A -- conservative approach
+Spawn teammate "competitor-a" with prompt:
+  "Implement {task_description} using approach: CONSERVATIVE.
+   Prefer existing patterns, minimal new abstractions, conventional solutions.
+   Work in isolation until the review phase.
+   Phase: {N}, Plan: {id}, Issue: #{phase_issue_number}.
+   Success criteria: {criteria from plan}.
+   When done, commit your work and report RESULT: PASS or RESULT: FAIL."
+Model: {executor_model}
+
+// Teammate B -- innovative approach
+Spawn teammate "competitor-b" with prompt:
+  "Implement {task_description} using approach: INNOVATIVE.
+   Optimize for performance and elegance, explore novel patterns where justified.
+   Work in isolation until the review phase.
+   Phase: {N}, Plan: {id}, Issue: #{phase_issue_number}.
+   Success criteria: {criteria from plan}.
+   When done, commit your work and report RESULT: PASS or RESULT: FAIL."
+Model: {executor_model}
+
+// (Optional -- critical tasks only) Teammate C -- defensive approach
+Spawn teammate "competitor-c" with prompt:
+  "Implement {task_description} using approach: DEFENSIVE.
+   Maximize error handling, edge case coverage, and robustness.
+   Work in isolation until the review phase.
+   Phase: {N}, Plan: {id}, Issue: #{phase_issue_number}.
+   Success criteria: {criteria from plan}.
+   When done, commit your work and report RESULT: PASS or RESULT: FAIL."
+Model: {executor_model}
+```
+
+**Step 3 -- Adversarial critique via SendMessage:**
+After all teammates complete, each reviews the others' implementations:
+
+```
+SendMessage({
+  type: "message",
+  recipient: "competitor-b",
+  content: "Review competitor-a's implementation. Be adversarial: (1) correctness issues, (2) missing edge cases, (3) maintainability concerns. Find real problems, not style preferences.",
+  summary: "Requesting adversarial review of competitor-a"
+})
+
+SendMessage({
+  type: "message",
+  recipient: "competitor-a",
+  content: "Review competitor-b's implementation. Be adversarial: (1) correctness issues, (2) missing edge cases, (3) maintainability concerns. Find real problems, not style preferences.",
+  summary: "Requesting adversarial review of competitor-b"
+})
+```
+
+**Step 4 -- Fresh verifier selects winner:**
+Spawn a verifier agent (NOT a team member) to evaluate both implementations and both critiques:
+
+```
+Agent(
+  subagent_type: "verifier",
+  model: "{verifier_model}",
+  prompt: "
+    Judge a competitive implementation. Agents implemented the same task independently, then critiqued each other.
+
+    Implementations: competitor-a (CONSERVATIVE), competitor-b (INNOVATIVE)
+    Critiques: {critique summaries}
+
+    Selection criteria (priority order):
+    1. Correctness -- satisfies all success criteria
+    2. Test coverage -- edge cases tested
+    3. Code quality -- readability, codebase consistency
+    4. Simplicity -- fewer abstractions when correctness is equal
+
+    Output: WINNER: competitor-{a|b|c}
+    Followed by justification.
+  "
+)
+```
+
+Discard the losing worktree branch. Merge the winner via the standard flow.
+
+**Tier 1 fallback:** Spawn 2 independent executor subagents via `Agent(isolation: "worktree", run_in_background: true)` with different approach prompts. After both complete, spawn a verifier to compare. No inter-agent messaging -- the verifier reads both outputs directly.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 2 -- Multi-Reviewer Code Review (Cross-Checking)
+
+**Use when:** A PR or implementation requires review from multiple specialist perspectives that must challenge each other's findings.
+
+**Flow:** `TeamCreate` --> spawn 3 specialist reviewers --> each reviews independently --> `SendMessage` to share findings --> each reviewer challenges other reviewers' findings --> coordinator synthesizes unified report.
+
+**Step 1 -- Create the review team:**
+```
+TeamCreate(
+  team_name: "review-phase-{N}-task-{id}",
+  description: "Multi-dimensional code review: {description}. Reviewers share and cross-check findings."
+)
+```
+
+**Step 2 -- Spawn specialist reviewers:**
+```
+// Security reviewer
+Spawn teammate "reviewer-security" with prompt:
+  "Review the implementation for security concerns: authentication, authorization, input validation, injection risks, token handling, data exposure.
+   Files to review: {file list or PR reference}.
+   Report findings as: CRITICAL / WARNING / INFO with evidence (file path + line number).
+   When done, send your findings to reviewer-performance and reviewer-tests."
+Model: {executor_model}
+
+// Performance reviewer
+Spawn teammate "reviewer-performance" with prompt:
+  "Review the implementation for performance concerns: N+1 queries, missing indexes, unnecessary allocations, caching opportunities, algorithmic complexity.
+   Files to review: {file list or PR reference}.
+   Report findings as: CRITICAL / WARNING / INFO with evidence (file path + line number).
+   When done, send your findings to reviewer-security and reviewer-tests."
+Model: {executor_model}
+
+// Test coverage reviewer
+Spawn teammate "reviewer-tests" with prompt:
+  "Review the implementation for test coverage: missing edge cases, untested error paths, assertion quality, flaky test patterns, coverage gaps.
+   Files to review: {file list or PR reference}.
+   Report findings as: CRITICAL / WARNING / INFO with evidence (file path + line number).
+   When done, send your findings to reviewer-security and reviewer-performance."
+Model: {executor_model}
+```
+
+**Step 3 -- Share and cross-check findings:**
+After each reviewer completes their initial review, they share findings with the others via `SendMessage`:
+
+```
+// Each reviewer sends findings to the other two
+SendMessage({
+  type: "message",
+  recipient: "reviewer-performance",
+  content: "My security findings: {findings list}. Do any of these conflict with your performance findings? Are there performance optimizations that would introduce security risks?",
+  summary: "Security reviewer sharing findings for cross-check"
+})
+```
+
+Each reviewer then challenges the others' findings:
+```
+SendMessage({
+  type: "message",
+  recipient: "reviewer-security",
+  content: "Reviewing your security findings: Finding #2 (SQL injection risk in query builder) -- I confirmed this also causes a performance issue due to string concatenation in a hot path. Finding #4 (token expiry) -- this is a false positive; the token refresh middleware handles this case. Evidence: {file}:{line}.",
+  summary: "Performance reviewer challenging security findings"
+})
+```
+
+**Step 4 -- Coordinator synthesizes report:**
+The team lead (or a fresh agent) collects all findings and cross-check results, then produces a unified review:
+
+```
+Agent(
+  subagent_type: "verifier",
+  model: "{verifier_model}",
+  prompt: "
+    Synthesize a unified code review from three specialist reviewers.
+
+    Security findings: {security reviewer's final findings}
+    Performance findings: {performance reviewer's final findings}
+    Test coverage findings: {test reviewer's final findings}
+    Cross-check disputes: {list of challenged findings and resolutions}
+
+    Produce a single review report:
+    - CRITICAL items (must fix before merge)
+    - WARNING items (should fix, not blocking)
+    - INFO items (suggestions)
+    - Disputed findings and resolution
+  "
+)
+```
+
+Post the unified report as a GitHub comment on the relevant issue.
+
+**Tier 1 fallback:** Spawn 3 independent reviewer subagents via `Agent(run_in_background: true)`. Each produces its own report. The orchestrator merges reports manually -- no cross-checking between reviewers. Less thorough but fully functional.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 3 -- Collaborative Debugging (Adversarial Hypothesis Testing)
+
+**Use when:** A bug's root cause is unclear and multiple hypotheses need to be tested simultaneously. Each investigator pursues a different theory and actively tries to disprove the others.
+
+**Flow:** `TeamCreate` --> spawn 2-3 investigators --> each pursues a different hypothesis --> `SendMessage` to share evidence and challenge other hypotheses --> hypothesis that survives adversarial testing wins --> fix implemented by the confirmed investigator.
+
+**Step 1 -- Create the investigation team:**
+```
+TeamCreate(
+  team_name: "debug-phase-{N}-task-{id}",
+  description: "Adversarial debugging: {bug description}. Investigators pursue competing hypotheses and challenge each other's evidence."
+)
+```
+
+**Step 2 -- Spawn investigators with distinct hypotheses:**
+Derive hypotheses from the bug symptoms, error logs, and codebase analysis.
+
+```
+// Investigator A -- hypothesis: race condition
+Spawn teammate "investigator-a" with prompt:
+  "Bug: {bug description with symptoms and error output}.
+   Your hypothesis: RACE CONDITION in {suspected component}.
+   Investigate this hypothesis:
+   1. Find evidence supporting or refuting it
+   2. Write a reproducer test if possible
+   3. If confirmed, draft a fix
+   4. Share evidence with other investigators via SendMessage
+   5. Actively challenge other investigators' hypotheses with counter-evidence"
+Model: {executor_model}
+
+// Investigator B -- hypothesis: configuration error
+Spawn teammate "investigator-b" with prompt:
+  "Bug: {bug description with symptoms and error output}.
+   Your hypothesis: CONFIGURATION ERROR in {suspected component}.
+   Investigate this hypothesis:
+   1. Find evidence supporting or refuting it
+   2. Write a reproducer test if possible
+   3. If confirmed, draft a fix
+   4. Share evidence with other investigators via SendMessage
+   5. Actively challenge other investigators' hypotheses with counter-evidence"
+Model: {executor_model}
+
+// Investigator C -- hypothesis: data corruption
+Spawn teammate "investigator-c" with prompt:
+  "Bug: {bug description with symptoms and error output}.
+   Your hypothesis: DATA CORRUPTION in {suspected component}.
+   Investigate this hypothesis:
+   1. Find evidence supporting or refuting it
+   2. Write a reproducer test if possible
+   3. If confirmed, draft a fix
+   4. Share evidence with other investigators via SendMessage
+   5. Actively challenge other investigators' hypotheses with counter-evidence"
+Model: {executor_model}
+```
+
+**Step 3 -- Evidence sharing and adversarial challenges:**
+Investigators share findings and challenge each other via `SendMessage`:
+
+```
+// Investigator A shares evidence
+SendMessage({
+  type: "message",
+  recipient: "investigator-b",
+  content: "Evidence for race condition hypothesis: I found unsynchronized access to {resource} at {file}:{line}. The timing window is ~50ms under load. This contradicts your configuration hypothesis because the config values are correct -- the issue only manifests under concurrent access. Can you disprove this?",
+  summary: "Investigator-a sharing race condition evidence, challenging config hypothesis"
+})
+
+// Investigator B responds with counter-evidence
+SendMessage({
+  type: "message",
+  recipient: "investigator-a",
+  content: "Your race condition evidence is plausible but I found that the same symptom occurs on single-threaded test runs. See: {test output}. This suggests the root cause is upstream of the concurrent access point. My config hypothesis: the timeout value at {file}:{line} defaults to 0 when the env var is missing.",
+  summary: "Investigator-b providing counter-evidence to race condition hypothesis"
+})
+```
+
+**Step 4 -- Resolution:**
+The team lead evaluates which hypothesis survived adversarial testing:
+
+```
+Agent(
+  subagent_type: "verifier",
+  model: "{verifier_model}",
+  prompt: "
+    Evaluate competing debugging hypotheses.
+
+    Hypothesis A (race condition): {evidence summary, challenges received, responses}
+    Hypothesis B (configuration): {evidence summary, challenges received, responses}
+    Hypothesis C (data corruption): {evidence summary, challenges received, responses}
+
+    Determine:
+    1. Which hypothesis best explains ALL symptoms?
+    2. Which hypothesis survived adversarial challenge?
+    3. Is the proposed fix correct and complete?
+
+    Output: CONFIRMED: investigator-{a|b|c} -- {hypothesis name}
+    Followed by: evidence that confirms, evidence that was disproven, recommended fix.
+  "
+)
+```
+
+The confirmed investigator's fix is merged. Other worktree branches are discarded.
+
+**Tier 1 fallback:** Spawn 2-3 independent debugging subagents via `Agent(isolation: "worktree", run_in_background: true)`. Each investigates a different hypothesis and reports findings. The orchestrator compares reports without inter-agent debate. Less adversarial but still tests multiple hypotheses in parallel.
+
+---
 
 ### Graceful Degradation
 
 If Agent Teams are unavailable (env var `CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS` not set, unsupported plan, or feature not yet stable), MaxsimCLI falls back to Tier 1 subagents for all workflows. Inform the user with this exact message:
 
 > "Competitive mode: using Tier 1 subagents (Agent Teams not available or not required for this strategy). Each executor works independently; verifier selects the best result."
 
-The user is informed but not blocked. All workflows remain fully functional via Tier 1.
+The user is informed but not blocked. All workflows remain fully functional via Tier 1. Each pattern above includes a specific Tier 1 fallback that preserves the core workflow (parallel execution + verifier selection) without inter-agent messaging.
 
 ## Limits