What collaboration supports

The documentation describes Bot collaboration and shared work. It also states that account Bots share one computer environment. Multiple roles can help organize work, but they are not access isolation or proof of independent verification.

This researcher-and-reviewer setup is an editorial pattern to test. We have not benchmarked it against a single Bot.

Documentation: Official collaboration guide ↗ Shared computer model ↗

Split by deliverable, not personality

Give the first Bot a bounded evidence task: investigate three questions and create a source table. Give the second a concrete review task: check the cited evidence, identify unsupported claims, and produce a final brief. Two broad instructions to 'research this' often overlap instead of creating useful parallel work.

Use one owner for the final artifact. If both Bots revise the same file without a handoff, corrections can become difficult to trace. Our suggested pattern is a research artifact, a review note, and a final version owned by the reviewer. This is a process convention, not a technical lock.

  1. Define a question set and a single final deliverable.
  2. Assign evidence collection to one Bot and claim checking to the other.
  3. Ask the researcher to provide source locations, dates, uncertainty, and a list of remaining questions.
  4. Have the reviewer open the cited sources rather than only summarizing the researcher's prose.
  5. Consolidate into one final result with disputed and unverifiable claims made explicit.

A handoff note the next Bot can use

Use this at the end of the first stage. The recipient should not need the entire conversation to understand what to do next.

Try this brief

Prepare a handoff for the reviewer of [project]. Include the objective, artifact location, sources inspected, main findings with source links, unresolved questions, and known limitations. Identify which files are ready to review and which are incomplete. The reviewer should verify the claims against the original sources, record disagreements, and own the final brief. Do not overwrite the research artifact or expand the task to external publication. Keep any requested external action pending a separate decision.

Original editorial template. Replace placeholders and review access before running.

Check whether the extra Bot helped

Track which issues the reviewer actually found and how much extra coordination the split required. If the second stage only rephrases the first, a single Bot with an explicit review pass may be simpler. Keep two roles when they produce distinct, useful artifacts or let independent work proceed at the same time.

Agreement between two generated answers is not verification. The deciding evidence is the source, a reproducible check, or a human judgment made explicit in the final result.

  • Each Bot has a distinct output and stopping point.
  • The handoff identifies the current artifact version.
  • The reviewer checks original evidence.
  • One Bot owns final consolidation.
  • Extra coordination has an observable benefit.

Sources & next steps

Capabilities are grounded in the documentation below. The workflow design and acceptance checks are editorial suggestions.

Build your own workflow brief ↗