Preventing Agent Conflicts

When multiple AI agents implement different parts of a system, they can make conflicting technical decisions. Architecture documentation prevents this by establishing shared standards.

---

Common Conflict Types

API Style Conflicts

Without architecture:

• Agent A uses REST with /users/{id}
• Agent B uses GraphQL mutations
• Result: Inconsistent API patterns, confused consumers

With architecture:

• ADR specifies: “Use GraphQL for all client-server communication”
• All agents follow the same pattern

Database Design Conflicts

Without architecture:

• Agent A uses snake_case column names
• Agent B uses camelCase column names
• Result: Inconsistent schema, confusing queries

With architecture:

• Standards document specifies naming conventions
• All agents follow the same patterns

State Management Conflicts

Without architecture:

• Agent A uses Redux for global state
• Agent B uses React Context
• Result: Multiple state management approaches, complexity

With architecture:

• ADR specifies state management approach
• All agents implement consistently

---

How Architecture Prevents Conflicts

1. Explicit Decisions via ADRs

Every significant technology choice is documented with:

• Context (why this decision matters)
• Options considered (what alternatives exist)
• Decision (what we chose)
• Rationale (why we chose it)
• Consequences (trade-offs accepted)

2. FR/NFR-Specific Guidance

Architecture maps each functional requirement to technical approach:

• FR-001: User Management → GraphQL mutations
• FR-002: Mobile App → Optimized queries

3. Standards and Conventions

Explicit documentation of:

• Directory structure
• Naming conventions
• Code organization
• Testing patterns

---

Architecture as Shared Context

Think of architecture as the shared context that all agents read before implementing:

PRD: "What to build"
     ↓
Architecture: "How to build it"
     ↓
Agent A reads architecture → implements Epic 1
Agent B reads architecture → implements Epic 2
Agent C reads architecture → implements Epic 3
     ↓
Result: Consistent implementation

---

Key ADR Topics

Common decisions that prevent conflicts:

Topic	Example Decision
API Style	GraphQL vs REST vs gRPC
Database	PostgreSQL vs MongoDB
Auth	JWT vs Sessions
State Management	Redux vs Context vs Zustand
Styling	CSS Modules vs Tailwind vs Styled Components
Testing	Jest + Playwright vs Vitest + Cypress

---

Anti-Patterns

❌ Implicit Decisions

“We’ll figure out the API style as we go” → Leads to inconsistency

❌ Over-Documentation

Every minor choice documented → Analysis paralysis, wasted time

❌ Stale Architecture

Document written once, never updated → Agents follow outdated patterns

✅ Correct Approach

• Document decisions that cross epic boundaries
• Focus on conflict-prone areas
• Update architecture as you learn
• Use correct-course for significant changes

---

Related

• Why Solutioning Matters
• Four Phases
• Create Architecture