Running multi-agent teams without losing the review trail

Multi-agent coding only works when each agent leaves a reviewable contract in the repository. Running multi-agent teams is coordinating several coding agents on one codebase so scope, instruction precedence, and verification stay visible in files a reviewer can inspect.

The merge queue is where weak coordination shows up first. Three agents can finish three tasks, but the team still has to know which rules governed each diff.

Put the agent contract where reviewers already look

Do not treat multi-agent coding as a pure speed problem. Treat it as a coordination problem.

When a team adds a second or third agent, the hidden cost is reconstruction. Reviewers should not have to replay chats, terminal sessions, or local prompts to understand why a file changed.

Use the repo as the source of truth. Each delegated task should name its allowed paths, forbidden paths, verification command, and merge owner before the agent starts.

In a typical TypeScript monorepo, a checkout validation task might allow apps/web/app/api/checkout/** and packages/payments/**, forbid infra/**, and require pnpm test payments before merge. That is enough for a reviewer to compare the diff against the original boundary.

Give Cursor a narrow scope ledger

Cursor, Anysphere's AI code editor, is easiest to review when .mdc rules describe the task boundary outside the chat. The rule should say what the agent may change, what it must not touch, and how the result will be checked.

The trap is using chat instructions as the only contract. They are hard to audit during review and easy to lose after the session.

Use Cursor's agent workflow for the work, but keep the scope ledger in version control. If a task needs to touch a new folder, update the ledger before accepting the change.

Give Claude Code clear precedence before it runs

Claude Code, Anthropic's coding agent, needs explicit precedence rules when approvals, hooks, and local operator habits can conflict. A CLAUDE.md file should answer what wins before the session starts making changes.

This matters most around build scripts, deployment files, generated files, and secret-bearing paths. If infra/ requires human review, write that down where the agent and reviewer can both see it.

Claude Code hooks can enforce parts of this contract, but hooks are not a substitute for readable policy. Reviewers still need to understand why a command was blocked, allowed, or escalated.

Make Codex leave a replayable trail

Codex CLI, OpenAI's coding agent for terminal workflows, is easiest to trust when AGENTS.md requires a replayable record. The goal is not a perfect transcript. The goal is enough evidence for a reviewer who did not watch the terminal.

The trap is verification theater. A command may have run locally, but if the PR does not include the command, result, and relevant context, the reviewer cannot rely on it.

For a CLI-driven change, require the PR to state the intent, summarize the diff, and paste the exact verification command. The Codex quickstart shows how to start the workflow; the team still needs to define the review trail.

Use one merge gate across all agents

Different tools need different local files, but the merge queue needs one shared gate. The reviewer should be able to answer five questions without asking the operator to reconstruct the session.

• Did the task stay inside the allowed paths?
• Did the repo say which instructions win when rules conflict?
• Does the PR include the command trail and verification result?
• Does each Model Context Protocol (MCP) server have an owner and rollback path?
• Did sensitive paths get explicit human signoff?

This is the Review step in our methodology: make the evidence cheap enough that humans can spend their attention on design and risk. For broader governance patterns, keep this work aligned with your team's agentic coding governance standards.

Copy this starter contract into the repo and adapt it per tool:

# Agent task contract

- Agent/tool: <Cursor | Claude Code | Codex CLI>
- Goal: <one sentence describing the intended change>
- Allowed paths: <exact folders or globs>
- Forbidden paths: <files or folders requiring human edits>
- Instruction precedence: <what wins if rules conflict>
- Verification command: <exact command reviewers should expect>
- Evidence required in PR: <diff summary, command output, notes>
- Merge owner: <person or team>
- MCP servers used: <name, allowed actions, owner, rollback path>

Common questions

• How do we run multiple coding agents without lowering review quality?

  Put the contract in the repo before the agents run. Each task needs visible scope, precedence, verification, and ownership. Reviewers can then compare the final diff with written boundaries instead of reconstructing chat history, terminal output, or private operator decisions after the work is already in the merge queue.

• Do Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex need different rule files?

  Yes, because each tool reads and applies instructions differently. Cursor commonly uses .mdc rules, Claude Code uses CLAUDE.md plus hooks, and Codex CLI can use AGENTS.md for repository instructions. Keep the tool-specific files local, then apply one shared merge standard across every agent-assisted PR.

• What should we do when two agents touch the same files?

  Stop treating it as a merge conflict only and treat it as a contract conflict. Pick one merge owner, compare both diffs against the original scope, and rerun the verification command after resolving the overlap. If the agents had different instructions, update the precedence rule before delegating similar work again.

• What belongs in an MCP connector card?

  An MCP connector card should name the server, allowed actions, forbidden actions, owner, and rollback path. Keep it short enough to review in a PR. If the connector can read or write data that the card does not list, the real blast radius is larger than the documented one.

Further reading

• Cursor rules documentation
• Cursor agent overview
• Claude Code getting started
• Claude Code hooks
• OpenAI Codex quickstart
• OpenAI Codex repository
• Model Context Protocol specification
• NIST AI Risk Management Framework
• OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications

Make the next agent run reviewable

Pick one active workflow and add the agent task contract before the next delegated change. If you want to rehearse it on a live repo, bring that workflow to a training session.