PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 18, 20251 citationsOpen Access

Towards Engineering Multi-Agent LLMs: A Protocol-Driven Approach

View Full Paper
ZMZ. P. MaoJKJacky KeungFZFengji Zhang

Key Points

  • SEMAP effectively reduces multi-agent system failures in software engineering tasks, enhancing overall efficiency.
  • In code development, up to a 69.6% reduction in failures was achieved for function-level tasks, demonstrating the protocol's strength.
  • Using the Multi-Agent System Failure Taxonomy, SEMAP outperformed traditional approaches in coordinating multi-agent interactions.
  • The protocol's design includes explicit behavioral contracts and lifecycle-guided execution to ensure better verification guidelines.

Abstract

The increasing demand for software development has driven interest in automating software engineering (SE) tasks using Large Language Models (LLMs). Recent efforts extend LLMs into multi-agent systems (MAS) that emulate collaborative development workflows, but these systems often fail due to three core deficiencies: under-specification, coordination misalignment, and inappropriate verification, arising from the absence of foundational SE structuring principles. This paper introduces Software Engineering Multi-Agent Protocol (SEMAP), a protocol-layer methodology that instantiates three core SE design principles for multi-agent LLMs: (1) explicit behavioral contract modeling, (2) structured messaging, and (3) lifecycle-guided execution with verification, and is implemented atop Google's Agent-to-Agent (A2A) infrastructure. Empirical evaluation using the Multi-Agent System Failure Taxonomy (MAST) framework demonstrates that SEMAP effectively reduces failures across different SE tasks. In code development, it achieves up to a 69.6% reduction in total failures for function-level development and 56.7% for deployment-level development. For vulnerability detection, SEMAP reduces failure counts by up to 47.4% on Python tasks and 28.2% on C/C++ tasks.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mao et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68f3b2fb3f213c1f8b4d34dehttps://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2510.12120
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper