Loading
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, coordin
The skill file stays in the publisher's repository.
Paste the copied command in a terminal. It installs this SKILL.md into that agent.
npx skills add alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill agent-protocol -a cursor -y
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.
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.
How C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.
agent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol
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
| Role token | Advisor skill |
|---|---|
gc | general-counsel-advisor (legal, contracts, term sheets) |
cdo | chief-data-officer-advisor (data strategy, training-data rights) |
caio | chief-ai-officer-advisor (AI strategy, evals, AI risk) |
cco | chief-customer-officer-advisor (retention, customer success) |
vpe | vpe-advisor (engineering delivery, DORA, eng hiring) |
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]
These rules are enforced unconditionally. No exceptions.
An agent cannot invoke itself.
❌ CFO → [INVOKE:cfo|...] — BLOCKED
Chains can go A→B→C. The third hop is blocked.
✅ CRO → CFO → COO (depth 2)
❌ CRO → CFO → COO → CHRO (depth 3 — BLOCKED)
If agent A called agent B, agent B cannot call agent A in the same chain.
✅ CRO → CFO → CMO
❌ CRO → CFO → CRO (circular — BLOCKED)
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]
NO invocations allowed. Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.
[ASSUMPTION: ...]Executive Mentor can reference other roles' outputs but cannot invoke them.
[INVOKE:cfo|...] during critique phaseInvocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.
Invoke when:
Assume when:
When assuming, always state it:
[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]
When two invoked agents give conflicting answers:
[CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]
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.
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:
/cs:office-hours, and /cs:founder-mode load. Prevents hallucinated consensus./cs:decide and the Chief of Staff (post board-meeting Phase 5). Individual role agents never write decisions directly.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/.
| 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: ...] |
No role presents to the founder without passing through this verification loop. The founder sees polished, verified output — not first drafts.
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
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 |
| Legal exposure, contracts, term sheets | GC | Clause risk, IP ownership, regulatory triggers |
| Data rights, training-data provenance | CDO | Consent basis, GDPR Art. 6, data-asset impact |
| AI model claims, eval results, AI risk | CAIO | Eval coverage, hallucination SLO, EU AI Act tier |
| Retention, churn, customer-health claims | CCO | GRR/NRR decomposition, churn root cause |
| Delivery timelines, eng throughput | VPE | DORA metrics, cycle-time reality, team capacity |
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:
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:
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]
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
| 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 |
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)
All C-suite output to the founder follows ONE format. No exceptions. The founder is the decision-maker — give them results, not process.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📊 [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]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🚩 [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 — [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]
🔑 YOUR CALL
[Options if you disagree with the recommendation]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
references/invocation-patterns.md — common cross-functional patterns with examples