While building Agentic AI systems, choosing the right LLM is the key to success. You can build systems with one agents performing multiple tasks or multiple agents performing tailored tasks. The rise of large language models (LLMs) has prompted a wave of experimentation around agent-based systems—especially multi-agent architectures where many specialized agents work together toward a larger goal. But as with many promising technologies, we’re now entering a phase of critical reflection: Should we build multi-agent systems at all?

Two landmark posts recently lit up the debate. Anthropic shared how a multi-agent system supercharged their AI research workflows. Cognition countered with a cautionary tale: don’t build multi-agent systems unless you absolutely must. LangChain followed up with a thoughtful synthesis, laying out when these systems shine—and when they fall apart.

So who’s right?

The answer, as with many things in AI, is: it depends. It depends on the problem you’re solving, the tools you’re using, the design of your architecture, and—above all—the way agents coordinate, communicate, and remember. In this blog post, we dive into what a multi-agent system is, unpack the core ideas from Anthropic and Cognition, and explore how modern Agent Engineering—including practices at Superagentic AI—can make these systems not just viable, but powerful.

Listen this post as an podcast

 

What is a Multi-Agent System?

Before we deep dive into the post, let’s uncover what the heck is Multi-Agent system, A multi-agent system is one where multiple autonomous agents interact to solve a problem or complete a task. These agents may specialize in different skills—searching the web, writing code, analyzing documents, making decisions—and can work in parallel or in sequence.

At its best, a multi-agent system behaves like a well-orchestrated team: dividing work, sharing context, checking each other’s outputs, and reaching better outcomes than a monolithic agent could on its own. But in practice, coordinating such systems is hard. Poor design can lead to agents miscommunicating, looping indefinitely, or making conflicting decisions.

Anthropic vs. Cognition: Two Sides of the Multi-Agent Coin

In Anthropic’s engineering post, their team highlights how multi-agent setups helped researchers explore ideas in parallel, suggest improvements to each other, and pursue divergent hypotheses. It worked well because research is inherently exploratory and nonlinear—an environment where multiple agents exploring different paths can be more fruitful than a single-threaded approach.

On the other side, Cognition AI’s post critiques multi-agent systems for producing disjointed results, especially in coding tasks. When multiple agents with partial knowledge try to write different pieces of code, they tend to lack shared context, leading to brittle or incoherent outputs. Instead of collaboration, the result is chaos.

So what’s the difference? Context. Anthropic engineered a system where agents shared full traces, remembered decisions, and worked on tasks suited for parallelism. Cognition described systems that lacked shared state, coordination discipline, and clear communication channels.

Key Components of a Multi-Agentic System

To move from “multi-agent” as a buzzword to a working system, we need to get the foundations right. Here are the essential components:

1. Context Engineering

We already covered the Context Engineering in the previous post here, If prompt engineering was the foundation of early LLM use, context engineering is its successor in multi-agent systems. Agents must have access to shared memory, prior conversations, decisions made by other agents, and evolving goals. Without it, each agent operates in isolation, making coordination near impossible.

At Superagentic AI, context engineering is central to our Agent Engineering stack, out next agent framework will have carefully context engineered design.

2. Agent Memory: Short-Term + Long-Term

Reliable memory is what turns a stateless chatbot into a persistent collaborator. Our AgentVectorDB powers both short-term memory (current task context, previous agent actions) and long-term memory (past strategies, reusable insights, tool performance history). When agents can recall outcomes and adjust accordingly, they become adaptive, not repetitive.

Multi-agent systems without memory often spiral—repeating failed approaches, or losing track of goals. With memory, they evolve. That’s the difference between noise and intelligence.

3. Agent Engineering: Purpose-Built Roles

Each agent needs more than just a task—it needs a role. At Superagentic, we follow structured Agent Engineering practices to define agent behavior, domain expertise, response patterns, and evaluation metrics. Agents are not just LLM prompts—they are engineered entities with governance, feedback loops, and trust boundaries.

For example, a Research Agent may need chain-of-thought prompting, tool use logging, and confidence scores. A QA Agent might need model redundancy or adversarial testing. Engineering these distinctions is what turns a fragile system into a robust one.

Optimization, Evaluation, and Orchestration: The Triad of Agentic Systems

A successful multi-agent system isn’t just about the agents. It’s about the glue—how agents are coordinated, improved, and judged.

Optimization

Agents must learn from failure. Through automatic retry strategies, performance scoring, and fine-tuned prompts, multi-agent systems should optimize themselves over time. This includes tuning agent behavior, refining task breakdowns, and improving routing logic.

Evaluation

Evaluation is essential. Each agent’s outputs must be measured—against ground truth, expectations, or higher-order goals. Our systems use both automatic evaluators and human-in-the-loop review processes to detect hallucinations, logical errors, or inefficiencies.

Orchestration

This is the heartbeat of the system: How are agents sequenced? How is control passed? Orchestration defines the flow of logic, delegation of sub-tasks, and the rules for collaboration. Whether using workflows, trees, or graphs, orchestration must be engineered with precision to avoid deadlocks, loops, or resource overuse.

Human-in-the-Loop and Agentic Co-Intelligence

Even with powerful automation, the best systems include humans. Superagentic AI follows  Aagentic Co-Intelligence, we treat humans as supervisors, mentors, or collaborators—not passive end users. Multi-agent systems benefit from human review points, escalation paths, and reinforcement mechanisms that prevent blind spots and enhance decision-making.

Human-in-the-loop design is not a concession to AI’s limits—it’s a multiplier of its strength.

How to Build a Multi-Agent System That Actually Works

Combining insights from Anthropic, Cognition, and real-world deployments, here’s what we’ve learned about building effective multi-agent systems:

• Only use multi-agent setups when the task truly requires it—e.g., exploratory research, tool-rich environments, or workflows with high parallelism.

• Ensure agents share full context—this includes decisions, intermediate results, failures, and current goals.

• Engineer each agent individually, with custom memory, feedback, and behavior profiles.

• Continuously evaluate and optimize—use both automated and human judgment.

• Orchestrate with intent, not improvisation—design workflows and delegation logic carefully.

• Design for failure—build in safety nets, retry logic, and transparency into every agent’s process.

Multi-agent systems are not magic. But when they are well-engineered, they are more than the sum of their parts.

Final Thoughts: Beyond Hype, Toward Design

We’re at a pivotal moment in the evolution of AI systems. Multi-agent architectures promise scale, specialization, and adaptability—but they also demand rigor, memory, and orchestration. The posts by Anthropic, Cognition, and LangChain are not in conflict—they’re a shared map of the frontier, from different sides.

At Superagentic AI, we believe the future lies in intelligent agent design, evaluated orchestration, and co-intelligent collaboration. Whether you’re building agents for research, operations, or software development, the principles above can help you navigate the complexities of modern AI architecture.

Multi-Agent, or not? The answer is yes—but only if you build with care, context, and coherence.