EvoClaw Multi-Round Deliberation Protocol
Overview
A single round of feedback is NOT a discussion. Real deliberation requires iteration: agents identify issues → someone fixes them → agents verify the fix → repeat until resolved. This protocol standardizes this loop across all phases.
The Problem with Single-Round Feedback
WRONG (current anti-pattern):
3 agents give opinions → main agent "synthesizes" → done
→ Issues may be noted but never actually resolved
→ No verification that fixes addressed the concerns
RIGHT (this protocol):
3 agents give opinions → main agent modifies artifact →
agents re-check → if unresolved, modify again →
repeat until convergence or max rounds
Core Protocol
Shared Value Framework (prevents divergence)
All agents in a deliberation share these values, injected into every prompt:
SHARED VALUES (inject into every agent prompt in this deliberation):
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Target venue: [from research-anchor.yaml]
Value proposition: [from research-anchor.yaml]
Research type: [from research-anchor.yaml]
OPTIMIZATION TARGET: "Would this survive peer review at [target venue]?"
SCORING RUBRIC (default — phases may override; see phase-specific sections):
- PASS: No fatal or major issues. Ready to proceed.
- CONDITIONAL: Major issues exist but are addressable. Needs another round.
- FAIL: Fatal issues. Fundamental rethinking needed.
CONVERGENCE RULE: Deliberation ends when ALL agents score PASS,
or when max rounds are reached and remaining issues are presented to user.
ANTI-DIVERGENCE: If you disagree with another agent's feedback,
state specifically WHY and propose a CONCRETE alternative.
"I disagree" without a counter-proposal is not constructive.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Deliberation Loop
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ROUND N │
│ │
│ 1. ASSESS (parallel) │
│ Dispatch ALL agents with current artifact │
│ Each returns: issues + verdict (PASS/COND/FAIL) │
│ │
│ 2. CHECK CONVERGENCE │
│ All PASS? → END (consensus reached) │
│ Any FAIL or COND + round < max? → go to step 3 │
│ Max rounds (5) reached? → END (present to user) │
│ │
│ 3. MODIFY │
│ Main agent (you) incorporates feedback: │
│ - Fix all issues marked as addressable │
│ - For disagreements: choose the stronger argument│
│ - Update the artifact │
│ │
│ 4. FULL RE-ASSESS (next round) │
│ Dispatch ALL agents again with: │
│ - The complete modified artifact │
│ - Summary of changes made since last round │
│ - Previous round's issues for reference │
│ All agents review the full artifact — not just │
│ their own previous concerns — because │
│ modifications can introduce new issues. │
│ │
│ → Back to step 2 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Round Limits (non-negotiable)
| Context | Max Rounds | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 5 story design | 5 | High-stakes — the story determines the paper's quality |
| Phase 6 per-section polishing | 5 | Each section must be thoroughly vetted |
| Phase 6 full-paper review | 5 | Full-paper coherence is critical |
Convergence Criteria
Deliberation ends (consensus) when ALL of:
- No agent gives verdict "FAIL"
- No remaining issues tagged "fatal" or "critical"
- All agents explicitly state their concerns from previous rounds are addressed
Non-Convergence Handling
If max rounds reached and agents still disagree:
DELIBERATION SUMMARY (presented to user):
══════════════════════════════════════════
Rounds completed: N / max N
Final verdicts: Agent A: [PASS/COND/FAIL], Agent B: [...], Agent C: [...]
RESOLVED issues (N):
✅ [issue] — addressed in round [N] by [change]
UNRESOLVED issues (N):
⚠️ [issue] — Agent [X] says: "[position]"
— Agent [Y] says: "[counter-position]"
— My recommendation: [your judgment]
DECISION NEEDED from you:
1. [Option A — side with Agent X]
2. [Option B — side with Agent Y]
3. [Option C — compromise you propose]
4. Run one more round of discussion
Full Re-Assessment Every Round
Every round, dispatch ALL agents with the complete modified artifact. Do NOT skip any agent — modifications to address one agent's concerns can introduce new issues that another agent would catch.
Re-assessment prompt template (used for Round 2+):
Call Task tool with:
description: "[agent role] — round [N] review"
prompt: |
[SHARED VALUES block]
This is round [N] of deliberation. In the previous round,
you and other agents raised these concerns:
===
YOUR previous concerns:
[paste this agent's issues from last round]
OTHER agents' concerns (for context):
[paste summary of other agents' issues]
===
Changes made since last round:
===
[paste summary of what changed and why]
===
COMPLETE MODIFIED ARTIFACT:
[paste the full updated artifact]
Review the COMPLETE artifact (not just the changes). Modifications
can introduce new issues. Answer:
1. For EACH of your previous concerns: RESOLVED / PARTIALLY / NOT ADDRESSED
2. Any NEW issues introduced by the modifications?
3. Any issues with how OTHER agents' concerns were addressed?
4. Overall verdict: PASS / CONDITIONAL / FAIL
If CONDITIONAL or FAIL: state exactly what remains to be fixed.
subagent_type: "generalPurpose"
Agent Disagreements
When agents directly contradict each other (e.g., Story Architect says "lead with stability" but Audience Specialist says "lead with monocyte substructure"):
- Present both positions with their reasoning
- Evaluate evidence: which position is better supported by the actual results and venue expectations?
- Choose the stronger argument for the modification
- In re-assessment: tell the overruled agent what you chose and why — they may accept or push back with new arguments
- If persistent disagreement after 2 rounds: present to user as a strategic choice
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
| Anti-pattern | Why it's wrong | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| Accepting "CONDITIONAL" without asking what's needed | "Conditional" means there ARE remaining issues | Ask the agent to specify exactly what remains |
| Running max rounds mechanically even when consensus reached in round 1 | Wastes time and tokens | Check convergence after every round; stop early if PASS |
| Ignoring one agent's feedback because the other two disagree | Minority opinion may be right | Address the concern or explain why it's overruled |
| "Synthesizing" by averaging opinions | Synthesis is not averaging | Choose the strongest argument for each issue |
| Skipping agents in later rounds to "save cost" | Fixes can introduce new issues that other agents would catch | Dispatch ALL agents every round |
Integration with Phases
Phase 1 — Idea Brainstorming
Artifact being deliberated: 5 candidate research ideas (idea cards from Step 5c)
Agents: Visionary Researcher, Pragmatic Advisor, Field Scout
Max rounds: 5
SCORING RUBRIC (Phase 1 override — ideas are not pass/fail):
- STRONG: High-potential idea. Clearly novel, feasible, and well-positioned.
- VIABLE: Promising but needs refinement. Addressable concerns exist.
- WEAK: Significant issues (novelty, feasibility, or positioning). Salvageable only
if combined with another idea or substantially reworked.
- KILL: Fatal flaw (already done, infeasible, or no clear contribution). Remove.
Mapping to core protocol: STRONG = PASS, VIABLE = CONDITIONAL, WEAK/KILL = FAIL.
Convergence uses Phase 1 rubric (STRONG/VIABLE), not core rubric (PASS/CONDITIONAL).
Convergence: Agents agree on a ranking of top 2-3 ideas (all rated STRONG or VIABLE)
Modifier: Main agent merges, splits, refines, or eliminates ideas between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete modified idea set every round
Special rules:
- Ideas can die, merge, or be born during brainstorming
- Visionary can propose new combinations of existing ideas
- If ALL ideas rated WEAK or KILL by majority → trigger "Idea Rescue" (see below)
- On-demand literature search allowed mid-deliberation (e.g., Scout needs to check competition)
Idea Rescue (when all ideas fail):
1. Agents identify WHY all ideas failed — common root cause?
2. Trigger broadened literature search targeting the identified gap
3. Main agent generates 3 new idea cards based on rescue search results
4. Resume deliberation with new ideas (round counter does NOT reset)
5. If still no STRONG/VIABLE after max rounds → present situation to user with
explanation of what was tried and why it failed. User decides next steps.
Phase 2 — Research Question Deliberation
Artifact being deliberated: Research Question
Type M/D/H agents: Senior Professor, Journal/Conference Editor, Research Scientist (PhD/Postdoc)
Type C agents: Target User Representative, Journal/Conference Editor, Software Architect
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS on the research question
Modifier: Main agent refines question between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete refined question every round
Special rule (Type M/D/H): Professor "FAIL — not novel" persistent for 2+ rounds → present to user immediately
Special rule (Type C): Target User "FAIL — no real pain point" persistent for 2+ rounds → present to user immediately
Phase 3 — Method/Framework Design Deliberation
Type M artifact: Method design (innovation point, architecture, baselines, ablations)
Type M agents: Innovation Advisor, Technical Architect, Baseline Devil's Advocate
Type D artifact: Analysis framework (analysis plan, sufficiency criteria, alternatives)
Type D agents: Domain Scientist, Methodology Consultant, Statistical Rigor Advisor
Type C artifact: Tool design (utility claim, evaluation framework, competing tools, case studies)
Type C agents: Target User, Competing Tool Expert, Software Quality Advisor
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS on the design
Modifier: Main agent refines design between rounds (may search additional literature)
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete refined design every round
Special rule: If any agent flags missing literature → search before next round
Phase 5 — Story Design Deliberation
Artifact being deliberated: Argument Blueprint
Agents: Story Architect, Devil's Advocate, Audience Specialist
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS on the blueprint
Modifier: Main agent rewrites blueprint between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete blueprint every round
Special rule: Devil's Advocate "fatal" on novelty → HARD BLOCK (no amount of rounds fixes missing novelty)
Phase 6 Per-Section — Writing Polishing Deliberation
Artifact being deliberated: One LaTeX section
Agents: Domain Expert, Writing Editor, Adversarial Reviewer
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS; authority score ≥ 7
Modifier: Main agent rewrites section between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete section every round
Special rule: If Adversarial Reviewer verdict "NO" after final round → trigger Cross-Critique (Phase B2)
Phase 6 Full-Paper — Final Review Deliberation
Artifact being deliberated: Complete paper
Agents: Proofreader, Domain Expert, Adversarial Reviewer #2
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: No FATAL/CRITICAL issues remaining
Modifier: Main agent fixes specific sections between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete paper every round
Special rule: "EXPERIMENT NEEDED" from any agent → return to Phase 4 (not fixable by more rounds)