I collected these notes from some exploration earlier. Figured if you’re this far along you’ll enjoy this detail gathered from leading users focused on scale. The focus here is on “Scaling Productivity With Agents” If you’re trying to scale capability, forget about building a hyper-smart agent. That doesn’t scale. The architecture that scales keeps the workers dumb and the system smart. Looking ahead, the winning teams won’t be the ones building elaborate agents for long drawn out execution. They’ll be the ones building ruthless orchestration in systems that can spawn, direct, and merge the outputs of hundreds (or thousands) of tightly-scoped agents autonomously executing. Think narrow tools, smart prompts, clean handoffs. Not one badass agent trying to save the day, but 100 decent ones getting shit done, fast. Most teams will fail at this because coordination is hard. Compute is scaling faster than your engineering team. But orchestration? Orchestration is a design problem, not a compute problem. You need tiers. You need external coordination. You need to build systems, not agents. The complexity belongs in the detailed and well structured system layer, not the agent brain. The agent should be stupid and disposable, like a script. The prompt is its operating manual. That’s it. If you get this right, you get output that scales with input. Then add agents to get more done. Get it wrong, and you get a coordination collapse after spinning up multiple agents that fail under their own context weight. “The magic isn’t in the agents. It’s in how they’re managed.” — Nate Jones This is the transition we’re living through right now. Multi-agent systems are about intelligence at leadership, and throughput at the dumber tier. The ones who figure that out will significantly outproduce the ones who don’t.