Speaker 12026 has been the year of agents. From OpenClaw at the beginning of the year to now platforms like Muse and Grokbot and Instinct that are getting people to actually take advantage of these incredibly powerful autonomous tools that are getting increasingly large portions of their work done for them, we really have gone from agents being the next big thing to just being here. The problem is our work isn't just done alone. We tend to work in teams with other people. And yet up till now, most agents have been solo affairs, only covering the portion of our work that we do on our own. I think that is shifting now. A trend which I've talked about as multiplayer AI or shared or team agents. But what does it mean to even build a team agent? What are the types of considerations that go into it? And how different is it really than just building an agent for yourself? Those are the questions that I get into with Nufar Gaspar on this Operator's Cut edition of the AI Daily Brief. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. All right, friends, quick announcements before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, KPMG, Blitzy, Harbor, and HyperAgent. To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com slash AI Daily Brief, or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts. And to learn more about sponsoring the show, send us a note at sponsors at AI Daily Brief. Just a couple other notes before we get in. Obviously, this is a pre-recorded episode. There are a bunch of things cooking today. We will have a lot to talk about. So we will be back with our normal format tomorrow. I also wanted to share a couple of upcoming opportunities. First of all, this Thursday, October 1st, we have a free live webinar all about building your personal AI benchmark. The whole idea is that when you get a new model like Opus 5.5 or Sonnet 5.5 or Gemini 4 next, this will help you put together your own standard benchmark to better understand where that model is going to fit into your own process. That is completely free. And if you register, you will get all the materials after, even if you can't attend. Again, that is coming up this Thursday, October 1st. Now, speaking of training, if you want to go a little bit deeper, the next cohort of our super intelligent executive AI and agent training programs is coming up. The executive agent leadership program is where you learn how to build AI agents for real business needs, as well as building a playbook to scale your business. So if you're interested in learning more about building your own AI agents for real business needs, you can go to the link in the description of this video. And if you're interested in learning more about building your own AI agents for real business needs, you can go to the link in the description of this video. And if you feel you need a little bit more background before you get into that, you can also do the executive catch-up program. The next agent leadership cohort starts on October 5th, while the next executive catch-up program starts a week later on October 12th. All right, with all that out of the way, let's talk about how to build team agents. All right, Nufar, welcome back to the show. We got an operator's cut today.
Speaker 2Yes, happy to be here again.
Speaker 1This one has its genesis, in some conversations we were having as we were coming up into the fall around what we wanted to do with the, you know, this fall's edition of a free self-directed training program. And we were talking a lot about this idea of multiplayer AI and a shifting pattern from people just building solo agents that they were using themselves to a prediction that we're going to start to see. And I guess we're starting to see early evidence of more agents that live in between people's shared workspace. And this kind of just follows the natural way that people work. A lot of your work is done individually, but then lots and lots is also done at the intersection with other people. And that's where team agents can live. And as we were building out that course that's available right now at multiplayer AI, and just thinking about this concept more broadly, one of the things that we kept coming back to was that this is nascent enough that what it means to actually build a team agent won't necessarily be super obvious. And so the goal of today's operator's cut is to build a team agent that's able to build a team agent that's able to build a team agent that's able to help actually think through how to build team agents, to understand what team agents look like, to understand in what ways they are different from, or I think probably what we'll argue here, similar to the types of agents that people might've already built and where they can go from here. So super excited to have you back and excited to dive in here.
Speaker 2Amazing. So I'm going to broaden your definition and I'm going to call them team agents. And the concept is teams that your entire team can work with, whether it's because work happened between them or just because they are a part of the team. So I'm going to call them team agents and the concept is team agents are something that can be shared across team members. And kind of the short version is that some agents should stay yours and private while others should become the team's level agents. And the ones that do become the teams need a few decisions made on purpose. Some of them, as you said, overlap with any good agent configuration, and some of them are more unique or at least more intentional. And that's what we'll walk through. And I wanted to start as a means of motivation to give you like two stories that you will probably recognize for you from your own experience. And I'm going to start with the first one, which is the company or your ecosystem. So the first is about a person that everybody that I work with, every company that I work with has at least one like that. And this person, they really know how their price and exception work or what the data is all about or how our biggest customer setup was configured three years ago. And when they're swamped, then work has to wait for them because they're the only one who knows. And when they're on vacation, someone still calls them. And when they leave, a piece of the company leaves with them. So in one of the companies that I work with, they had, I think, a person like that for each and every domain. So no one gets to take vacation without getting a call from their peers. And obviously that's not a desired state. The second scenario is work that nobody fully owns. So a customer can move from sales to marketing to customer success. And then sales made them a promise during the deal conversation. And marketing is running a campaign with slightly different messaging. And then customer success finds out these promises were made and they're going to get paid to them a few weeks before the renewal. And each team has their own piece and nobody has the whole picture because the work sits between them. So to your point. And even if they are using AI in each step of the process, these agents don't talk to each other and only worsen the problem in many cases. So an agent that is built for the whole team can help with both of these problems. And they are, of course, quite different problems. So there is another reason, I think, why this matters right now and why you should pay attention now, even if you feel a little bit like this is above your head. And that's the pattern that I think what we're starting to see across the most AI forward companies. And it goes in basically three steps. The step one is that everybody builds their own agents and they are happy with their productivity boost. Only with enough of those running around, we kind of get into an agent sprawl. Lots of agents doing overlapping work, each maintained by one person, each with slightly different picture of the company, and each one stops being useful. At the day that the owner loses interest or leaves the company. And then what you see in the most AI forward company, they started to merge some of those agents into team level agents. Those will typically be much fewer agents, much broader in their scope, and each with a named owner and used by many people and ideally refined over time as the team learns what they should and shouldn't do. And this is happening very publicly. There are many companies already talking about it. I think you mentioned Avery's experience. They started by giving every employee an agent early in the year, and then by May, they have moved to shared team agents. Sierra merged many of their agent specialists into one. Shopify is internal agent. So we see a lot of these in very public speaking companies all over the place. And most teams that I see are probably either in step one or two, but I think that it's very important for all of us to look at these AI forward companies and understand how to get to number three and how to do it properly. And that's the entire purpose of today. So to make sure that we are talking about the same thing, because there are multiple names to basically the same thing. Some people, including yourself, call it multiplayer AI. You probably also heard shared agents. Some people refer to them as AI teammates, and even company brain is sometimes thrown into the mix or interchangeably used to mean agents being used with shared knowledge across the company. I'm going to refer to them throughout the episode as team agents. And what I mean by that is we have one agent that's many people talk to with shared knowledge, shared memory, and one configuration. The instructions, the skills, the access, and the owner, they are all shared. And you might be thinking when you hear me saying that we already share skills, right? Most companies have an amazing skill library or working on a skill library, and that's awesome. And that's great standardization of how you do the work in the company. But a skill is a playbook for a specific task where a team agent is something that your whole team works with on a diverse set of tasks. It's not just ad hoc, as well as repeated stuff. It does carry the team knowledge, remembers what it learns, and using the team level skills, if you have them. Those, of course, can also tap into skills marketplaces and so on. So a skill library perhaps is one of the ingredients, but they are not one and the same. And I want you to today think about how and when to start building your next team agent. And one more note on scope, because there's a lot of excitement right now about all of the personal agents. I'm talking about me, and instinct, and some of the other in this category. Those are for like a home or private life. Today, the focus is going to be on work. So that's one thing to make sure that it's clear about the scope. We're talking about agents that you build for your job.
Speaker 1A new study from KPMG in the University of Texas at Austin found that when people work with AI, similar skills don't guarantee similar outcomes. Researchers studied more than 500 early career professionals and found that the best performers consistently amplified the value of AI by guiding the value of AI. and refining its outputs. These top performers, called AI amplifiers, weren't defined by what they knew alone, but by how they worked with AI. Learn more about what separates AI amplifiers from everyone else at kpmg.com slash us slash AI amplifiers. Blitzy deeply understands your code base before it writes code. Here's the first place that pays off. Security in the age of AI. Vulnerabilities don't live in isolation. They live buried inside millions of lines of interconnected code, where patching one thing quietly breaks three others. That's why surface level scans fail. Blitzy starts from its knowledge graph of your entire application, identifies and surfaces CVEs across the full estate, proactively recommends patches, and can execute the PR. Each fix is grounded in how your systems connect and validate so nothing new breaks, and the knowledge graph dynamically updates, keeping you ahead of an ever-accelerating threat landscape. One Blitzy customer resolved 21 active CVEs across six core microservices in four days. Zero compile errors, every validation scan clean, monthly revisions, and monthly revisions. Blitzy is a great tool for you to use. Planned work fixed in less than a week. Security remediation grounded in real architectural context at the speed of compute. Harden your code base at Blitzy.com. That's B-L-I-T-Z-Y dot com. Every episode, I talk about the competition between OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX AI, Google, and Meta. And if you've been listening for a while, you might have a favorite. Maybe you think OpenAI and Anthropic can stay ahead, or perhaps Meta's open source strategy can win out. Whatever your view, every AI lab creates a different investment opportunity. Harbor Capital, advisor's AI lab ecosystem ETF suite lets you invest in the ecosystem behind the AI lab you believe in. Search Harbor AI lab ecosystem ETFs wherever you invest or follow at Harbor Capital on X to learn more. Visit harborcapital.com for a prospectus containing investment objectives, risks, fees, expenses, and other important information. Read and consider it carefully before investing. Risks include principal loss and artificial intelligence related risks. Harbor ETFs are distributed by Foresight Fund Services, LLC. Harbor is not affiliated with AI Daily Brief and the funds are not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by any AI lab. This is a pay-per-view. Paid advertisement and not personalized investment advice. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. This episode of the AI Daily Brief is brought to you by HyperAgent, where you run fleets of agents your team can manage together. Forget local agents and chat workflows waiting on your laptop to be prompted. HyperAgent deploys always-on agents in the cloud, doing real work across the tools your team already uses. Marketing agents turn competitor moves into landing pages. Sales agents enrich leads, draft emails, and updates the CRM. Ops agent chases the paperwork and tracks the budget. Every agent has access to shared context and follows your rules about scope and approvals. It's time you had agents that feel like teammates. Hire yours at HyperAgent. Get $100 in credits at hyperagent.com slash AI Daily Brief.
Speaker 2Alright, I want to make sure that we understand like who I build the episode for. And I think it's built for everybody and not just the frontier professionals that are building the absolute cutting edge. If you're about to build one, of course, pay attention because it will provide you or verify the full playbook. It's also aimed at people who are not quite there yet because the decisions, as you rightfully said, do apply to any agent that you build or use. And a team agent just makes some of them even more critical. And even if you are working solo and you have a team of agents or you're contemplating building a team of agents, you have the same decisions. The other player in your ecosystem are probably not your peers because you work alone, but perhaps you're building it for your customers or you're building it for a future you to make sure that it's robust enough and representative enough of diverse set of work. So that's the motivation or who should pay attention. And one thing that I wanted to make sure that it's very clear is that not every agent should be shared. There is a dial here or a spectrum with three settings. We have a private agent that's yours for your work with your taste and your access. For example, my own social media agent stays private. I'm probably not going to be able to share it with anyone. So I'm going to make sure that I have a private agent because I'm the only one that wants to share or write in social in a specific way. So nobody should ever sound like me. And then we have shared knowledge. Those can be shared knowledge and skills, but still private agents, meaning the team maintains one body of knowledge. For example, what we sell, how we work, what our words mean, often with a shared skill library and everybody points their own agents at that. But this is where the skill library lives, by the way. And it's often the right answer. And it's the easiest place to start. Another concrete example, say every salesperson has a prospecting agent tuned to their own style and their own preferences. Keep those agents as they are because every salesperson wants to have their own voice, but give them all the same well-maintained picture of the ideal customer and the messaging for the company. So that's a hybrid mode that some companies or some use cases should remain. And lastly, we do have the team agents where we have one agent that many clients own owner and agents can move along the dial. And if you have a scenario where your colleagues keep asking to borrow your private agent, that's probably a sign that you need to make it a team agent or to consider sharing it with others. So the next question that I want to answer is, are all team agents from the same archetype or do they all follow the same type of use cases? And the answer is not. Like across the teams that I work with, I can roughly categorize the existing or future built team agents. And I can categorize the existing or future built team agents into four kinds. And knowing which your kind is, it helps you not only identify use cases, but also refine the use cases. And also it can tell you what to pay attention to in order to get it right. So the first type of team agent, I'm calling it the expert agent. It's the one person's know-how or one small team's know-how. It's available to everyone who depends on it. You'll recognize it by the person who can take the vacation. You remember from the beginning, if you want another example, it can be the data agent that can answer any data question across multiple departments in the company or a pricing and deal desk agent that serves a lot of go-to-market organizations, compliance agent, and so on. In order to get it right, the knowledge has to come from the experts that holds it in the company. They need to be interviewed. You need to collect the answers they already gave in multiple forums, whether those are direct messaging or emails in other places. And they have to be, the experts have to be involved from day one, because for them, this is what finally makes the vacation possible, but also a lot of job insecurity. So tread carefully when working in this domain. The second type is what I refer to the common work agent. That's the scenario where many people are doing similar recurring work with one shared way to do it. The way to recognize a use case that falls into this category is when three people have each built their own version of the same agent. The second type is when three people have each built their own version of the same agent. You can think about a team research and meeting prep agent. That's a very classical one, or marketing team's content agent. And I'm sure that you can think of others. In order to get this archetype right, you have to agree on how work is done. And it's easier to say than to actually execute because you're merging the best of three versions. And that's really a conversation about what you agree in terms of the standard for the company. So an interesting conversation at the very least, once you start contemplating unifying an agent like that. And then we have the bridge agent. That's the work that flows between roles where nobody can do it alone. You'll recognize it when the handoffs break and every stage has to expand the context or the agents have to somehow work together between different departments. Example can be a customer agent that spends sales, solution, customer success, and delivery. That's a very classical one. And to get it right, we have to have each function their own piece of knowledge that is being fed into this agent. And that's a very classical one. And to get it right, people with different access will be eventually using that. So we have to also pay attention very, very carefully to permissions and you'll have to work hard to do that. And lastly, we have the chief of staff. That's the agent that own the team operating, like operationalizing of the day-to-day work. It can be the decision, the commitment, the status, onboarding, and you will recognize this one when the team keeps repeating itself and new joiners take weeks to find their footing. And in order to get this one right, what you need to do, you need to have a team that is very professional. And you need to have a team that is You need to clearly define what it is allowed to learn, how can it learn the processes and the ongoing, and how does it do so automatically, which is not very trivial. And then there are also, of course, many questions around permissions and so on. So while you're thinking about these archetypes and which one of them might fit some use cases that you were pondering or that you should be thinking about, and before I give you the playbook on how to actually build these team agents, a quick detour, because I do want to give a quick reality check. There are some signs that a team agent is the wrong move, or at least not the right move for you at this moment. So one indication where you shouldn't build a team agent, at least yet, is when taste beats standards. If different people truly need different answers or are not willing to agree on a standard, and their own judgment or their own voice is the point, those need to remain private agents so people can remain authentic and not have to fight about the ground truth. And the second indication not to build is nobody can own the team. So if you're not willing to agree on a standard, then you're not willing to own the knowledge. If the team cannot agree on how the work is done, or nobody is willing to own and maintain the shared knowledge over time, the agent will drift within weeks, sometimes within days. So sort out the ownership before you go and build a team agent, because that's going to be a no-go. And lastly, whenever you're realizing that trying to build a shared agent, a team agent, only complicates more than it simplifies, because you have conflicting needs or tangled permissions, endless coordination. If you realize that the result is more work than what the agent can provide for you, that's the answer. Don't build it, at least not until you are able to untangle some of the complexities. And of course, notice what's missing from the list, sensitive data and high stakes. Those are design questions and they shape how you build it, which is where we're going next. So I don't think that when data is overly sensitive is a reason against, it's just something that needs extra careful attention. In order to build the candidate use case that hopefully you've gone through the decision checklist that I shared before, it comes down to five core design decisions for your agent. It goes to what it does, where it lives, what it knows, what it can touch and how can you run it? These are the core questions. In order to make it more concrete, I'll use one example, the whole way throughout. So it's going to be a customer agent and it's going to be the bridge kind, meaning one that holds everything the company knows about each customer and everything. We've promised them and it's probably going to be used by sales and solution engineering and customer success, delivery and so on. They will be using that example agent to do various customer related activities. So let's break down some of these decisions to make it actionable. So first, the decision that you have to make is what it does. A quick caveat here, there is a lot of scoping that is very similar for any serious agent at work. It needs to have a clear job and a definition of done and a list of what it does and do. I'm going to stick here to what changes when it's built for a team versus an agent that you build just for yourself. So the first decision is who it serves by role. For example, sales asks it different things than delivery does. So write down each role and what they'll come to the agent for to make sure that you're covering all the scope. And of course, you can aim for one broad area of work because I think the team agent should be quite capable agents. Otherwise, it's harder to justify their existence. In our example, I would expect that the team agent should be the one that will be able to prepare meeting answers. Where do we stand with this customer? We'll be able to flag promises that commit other teams and draft every handoff. For example, I have quite a broad scope and what keeps it focused is the area of work. And that is primarily in our case, customers. I want you also to pay attention to the team don'ts list. This is the part people often tend to skip. For example, it never makes commitment on someone's behalf. Or it never settles disagreement between people. Those go to its owner. You can think of another such example in your case. Also make sure that the don't list includes permissions and data handling stuff. So for example, it never carries information from one private space into a shared one. So it never discuss one customer in another customer space. And it doesn't speak for one person to another. And of course, like with any agent, ideally start with narrower scope, reading and drafting. Only when it earns sufficient trust and was validated enough, then you can increase the scope as you gain more and more confidence. So that's the first decision and we can move to the next one. The second question will be where the agent lives. And this is the question that gets asked most. So let's be a little bit concrete. Basically, if I'm trying to make it as simple as possible, there are roughly three ways to share an agent from the simplest to the most involved. The simplest method will just to create a shared folder with your own tools, like the tools that your company already owns. And then each person just point their own tool to the shared agent. And the folder will include instructions and potentially how to store new information as part of the way the agent overall behaves. That's a very naive and basic way. But as a stepping stone to building shared agents and team level agents, that can be a very good start, especially if all of your team members are already using similar agentic tools or agentic tools that can point to four. So that's the first step. The second step is to create a shared folder with as sources for their information. So that's the first and simplest method. The second way that we can do that is using a vendor ready made agent. And we're increasingly seeing more and more. And we believe that we will continuously see more and more in the coming weeks and month of the year. We'll talk more about it later. But the way this work is that the vendor host it and you configure it. And in this category, we have many very recently famous tools, including Cloud Tag, OpenAI has their ChatGPT workspace agent, Pilot has their own offering that can be used like that, Notion and many others are already offering shared spaces with agents that you can work together on. And it's just a matter of you configuring their specifics. And lastly, and that's, of course, the most sophisticated is an agent that you host, meaning that something that you run, it can be, for example, an open source agent like OpenClaw or Hermes on your own servers or on a list cloud. Or some companies are even building their own custom house. So that's a very, very simple way to do that. And I think that's harnesses specifically for these needs. So that's the most sophisticated, but obviously has the most technical demanding requirements, as well as the most freedom to build around that. So that's the three broad strokes options of where these team agents can live. On top of the decisions of how to build or the tools, there are two additional questions that come with them. The first question is who can see each person's conversation with the agent. Maybe it's only the people who are conversing with the agent. Maybe it's the entire channel or everyone in the session. Over here, there is a lot of differences between the different tools. In some tools, everybody can read every chat. For example, in Cloud in Slack, everyone in the channel sees what the agent does and what the agent converses with others and can also steer it. With many other agents, your chat is private. So that's sometimes a different way of doing it. And then the second question is who can see each design decision by the vendor. Sometimes it's something that you can configure. And the second question is what it learns stored and who can read it. So an ideal agent is not one that is obviously frozen, but one that has a lot of memory and learning on the go. And then the question, where is this learning being stored and how does it happen? Is it something that happens per person and then the agent evolves just from its interaction with you? Or is it per channel or team? Or maybe the entire workspace has a shared learning and memory and the agent evolves with everybody in public. And of course, one thing never costs customers. So do check and choose and tell the team before the first real task, what's the status with the team agent that you built, because this is where a lot of trust can be gained or lost. And my rule is to pick the simplest option that two people will actually use this week. And for our customer agent, that's probably a channel agent or a simple like a tool agent. Because full functions need it. And if I will make it overly complicated and people will need to understand how to connect to that versus just going into a Slack or Teams channel, it's not going to work. So in our case, that's probably going to be the right solution. This decision, I want to move arguably to the most important decision, and that's what it knows. And I think if you've built any agent, the recipe will sound very familiar. What's different for a team is that this is the moment the team agrees on the ground truth. How the work actually gets done is the moment the team agrees on the ground truth. How the work actually gets done is the definitions we use, which versions of the pricing policy is the real one. And I think that that conversation is worth having, even if you never ship the agent, because in most teams, even just agreeing on the knowledge is a big deal. And it's also where team agents get harder, because the moment knowledge is shared, then you have more contributors and more contradictions and more places for something important to fall through. So the process around the knowledge matters even more than it ever did in your private agent. So you need to pay attention to that. So you need to pay careful attention here. And ideally, you should go to these four stages. I want you to start by collecting the agent, by interviewing the people who hold the knowledge, and harvest what's already written in all the channels and all the places where information already resides. And I want AI to do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of aggregating and collecting the data. So for our customer agents, what I would do is I'll make sure that sales and solutions and success and delivery, they all will contribute their own piece. And then I want you to refine. I want you to merge the information coming from different sources, surface the contradictions. I'm sure that you will find five versions of the truth and then date everything and keep out what should never be shared. Of course, that includes passwords, notes about people, one customer's details in another customer's space, and so on. And then we have to approve it. Each piece should be signed off by whoever owns it. And the agent's owner puts it all together. And lastly, this can go stale very quickly. So you have to maintain. You need to decide what the agent may add to its own memory based on its working experience and what person has to review first when it goes into the knowledge and the memory. And we want to make sure that one person's definition of what's last year quietly becomes everyone's without any agreement. And of course, put the upkeep on a schedule because you want the agent to propose updates regularly and a person needs to review and approve the updates. And this is really the place to be very, very diligent and disciplined because it can totally make or break your team agent if you haven't done a good enough and self-sustaining process around acquiring and maintaining and verifying the knowledge that the agent taps into because it no longer serves you where you can very quickly fix anything that goes wrong. It can create a lot of havoc in your company if your team agent is not well educated enough on what matters. The fourth decision, is what it can touch. And this is where team agents differ from the private ones because your own agent acts as you. And a team agent acts for many people. So of course, course, there are many security 101 that you need to apply here. Those that apply to any agent definitely stick for the four rules that are specific to like, I'm going to just stick to the rules that apply to team agents. The first thing that you have to decide is whose access it uses. And you have three options. You can use the access or to act as whoever is asking. So it only sees what the person that was asking the question can see. And that's probably the safest choice, but sometimes the most complicated to execute unless the vendor already did it for you. And probably the right one when people on the team have different access levels. The other options that you have is to have its own account set up with exactly the access the job needs. And that's right when the whole team works on the same shared material. And lastly, it can use one person's login. Only ever do that for read-only and non-read-only. And that's a very sensitive material because everyone who talks to the agent effectively gets that person's access. So I would not recommend to go down that path. And what I would probably do for our customer agent is to act as the person asking because sales success and delivery see different things in the CRM and in other systems. So I don't want to have the agents responding to them with information that they shouldn't be able to see. So that was the first rule on what the agent can see. The second rule is to decide who can ask it. And when the agent is asking, when the agent has its own account, everyone who can talk to it can use the account. And if you put an agent with access to the pricing sheet in a channel of 40 people, a few contractors among them, then all of a sudden, all 40 can now get the pricing by asking. The agent knows more than some of the people who can reach it. So decide who can talk to it with the same care you give to what it can see. So that's something that happens very regularly when people don't pay attention. I also want you to decide where the answer lands. This one runs the other way. The agent uses the asker's own access and the asker has every right to ask the question. The problem is that the answer shows up in a shared space in front of people who don't. So this is something that is happening right now. If you will look at the documentation of Claude in Slack, it can use the asker's own connections inside the team channel. And after the person approves and the anthropic documentation currently notes that it doesn't consider who else is in the channel. So the agent can use the asker's own connections inside the channel. So if I approve to use my connectors and fetch all the information that I am permitted to see, and now the information is thrown at the channel where others can see that, that's the reality currently with the existing Claude implementation. So if it's sensitive, the answer has to go to the person who is asking privately and not in a shared channel. And lastly, keep record of who asked for what. And that's an important logging because when an agent works under its own account, the logs say the agent did it, right? And you want to know which person asked so you can backtrack and make sure that there are no unexpected behaviors. And everything else, like starting with the list access and having a person approve anything that can't be undone is the same for any agent. So I'm not giving you security one-on-one. Okay. Lastly, last decision and the one that will make your team agent live beyond its first week or the first month. That's the full like operating manual here. Of course, the multiplayer sprint has a much more comprehensive way of thinking about it. But these four points, those are what makes or break the agents in practice. So the first thing is one owner. Anyone on the team can hand the work, but I want to have one person or a very small group of people who owns the priorities, maintain the agent and decide when two people ask for opposite things, how to evolve the agent knowledge or feature set. They also decide on standing instructions and so on. So that's one thing. The second thing that I want to mention is the clear rules of engagement. I want you to tell people how to work with it, what it does and doesn't do and what it can see, who can see their conversation with it and everything that we discussed so far. We also want to have clear indications of how to correct the agent when it's wrong. And I think that people trust the agents that they're using and the team agents, the more they know what it's learning and what's the learning process. The next thing I want you to do is to put decisions where it can see them. So a team agent only knows what's written down in a place that it can reach. And if your team decides things in private messages and hallway conversations, the agent will never hear about them. And part of running it smoothly is to have it be able to tap into what's happening in real time in the team and to make sure that the team decisions and the team ongoing day-to-days are being learned by the agent itself. And lastly, I want you to keep watching because you will probably start with a small, ideally, you should start with a small pilot group and keep a few test questions that you can rerun whenever something happens. And if you don't, you're not going to be able to do it. So I want you to keep watching until something changes. But I also want you to just monitor because we know that things change very frequently. So it's not just about having a proper process for whenever you want to introduce a new model or a new tool or a new knowledge or changes in instructions, but also just to monitor that everything is working properly. And of course, in some cases, we would want to retire the team agent if it's not behaving properly as we expected. We covered a lot of I hope that I've convinced you that team agents matter for everyone, even if it will take you a while until you will actually be building one and that building them properly is what makes the difference. Of course, not every agent should be shared. A private agent or shared knowledge and skills with private agents or a team agents, these are all valid options and should be used where appropriate. We talked about the team agents that are coming in four kinds, the experts, the common work agent, the bridge and the chief of staff. And knowing which one your use case, fits into tells you a lot about how to get it right. And we also talked about three signs on when to wait, whether it's because taste beats the standards, whether because nobody can own the knowledge or when it doesn't simplifies the work. And once you're building, we went over the five decisions in order of what it does, where it lives, what it knows, what it can touch and how do you run it. And if you take those with you, you have what you need in order to get the team agent to do that. So if you're building a team, you have to have a team agent that is able to do that. So, first of all, that we have the multiplayer AI sprint, which is free and we'll walk you through a team activity of in four weeks, configuring everything that we discussed some of them in greater detail. If you want to learn how to properly build seriously team agents and agent rosters and how to do that in the best possible way, we have another cohort of the executive agent leadership that starts on October 5th and we'll be happy to see you with all of our builders. However, if you feel that you need a little bit of a catch up before you go and build agents for teams and rosters of agents and so on, we also have the executive catch up that helps you become best in class AI user before you go and build those agents. And lastly, everything is changing. Odds are that every week we will get a relevant release. And by the time you hear this, maybe already something was released. But I do think that everything that we cover today holds no matter what chips next, because when a an agent is built properly and the decisions are made right, it's orthogonal to any specific tool or feature. It's the business decision and the team standardization that matters much more than the tools that will help make it better by design, the more releases we will have. And if I need to make some predictions for the rest of the year. So I think that we will see more and more formalization of what we just covered and more tools and features that will help us get it even better and easier around identity, permission, ownership, and so on, as well as like we can always trust the practitioners to share many of their learnings in the public eye so we can learn from many of the other AI and like frontier individuals and companies and see how it's working for them. That's it. Awesome.
Speaker 1Great stuff, Nufar. I have a few things that I want to lob out there discussion style just as we close out. First of all, I guess the question, you know, you gave four archetypes of different types of agents that you've seen. Do you see Are any of them more common starting places than others for teams that you've observed?
Speaker 2I believe some of the burden on those bottlenecks within the company. So those I've seen a ton of implementations already. And I think the more the tools make it more accessible, the easier those will be to build. So those are probably the lowest hanging fruits.
Speaker 1That's funny, because that's exactly where my head goes. I'm super attracted to the ones that I think are most difficult to build. I've also seen a lot of, you know, very simple implementation of that expert one, which, you know, we talked about for a long time without even identifying it as a tool. before Grokbot or Microsoft Copilot or one of these sort of core tools that they might be using, OpenAI, Anthropic, just drop the sort of native version of this. And there's clearly some indications that they're thinking in this way. I think CloudTag being the best example so far. But, you know, is this one where the value of digging in at this stage is going to be so you understand the theory and the ways to customize when better tools come around in the future? Or how do you think about that trade-off?
Speaker 2I think the heavy lifting is always going to be the configuration and the knowledge curation. So I would select the one tool that is adjacent the most to your existing tool ecosystem and figure out how to implement all the rest. And if like a new, better, improved tools come to play, we'll be ready because you'll already agree on the ground truth, on the do's and don'ts of these agents, on the use cases. So even if you at first implement them very naively, that's going to have your future ready as for going and building these own like a competing product or your own like team level harnesses and so on. If you have the chops and you can do that easily and you have the justification, you can. But I'm not sure that I would have spent my energy now on going and building the own, like my own version of CloudTag or similar when we were, I think both of us agreed that all of these are coming and will probably be made very accessible and very smart. And your moat is probably in everything that these companies are doing. These companies cannot tap into.
Speaker 1Awesome. Well, thanks as always for another great operator's cut and excited to have you back soon.
Speaker 2Thank you. Bye.
PodcastTranscript AI