Org-Design Your AI Modes Like You Would a Team

"I need a separate mode for the API client because I want its objective to be 100% faithful to the client, not to my request."

That doesn't sound like prompt engineering. It sounds like a staff engineer explaining why they split a service.

It's actually someone explaining why they split an AI mode.

The skill you already have

If you've ever drawn a box diagram of team responsibilities, debated whether to merge two squads, or argued about who owns an interface, you already know how to configure AI agents.

Engineering leaders already have this skill. They just need to recognize they're now org-designing agents. Everyone has to think like a manager now - define outcomes, evaluate output, give feedback.

"Managers who have done org design, who have tried to figure out the best combination of people to work together, have this innately in them. They just have to recognize: okay, now you're org-designing your modes, your agents, the cooperation mechanisms between them, and the responsibility delegation between them."

JB Brown, Roo Cast S01E17

Start from the orchestrator

The entry point is the same as any systems design exercise: where do inputs come from, and where do outputs need to go?

Think of it as a value stream map. Work enters from the left (an issue, a PR, a Slack message). Work exits to the right (a diff, a review comment, a merged branch). The orchestrator routes the work and aggregates results.

"Start from the orchestrator level. Where do you get your inputs from? Where do your outputs need to go to? You're kind of doing a value stream map: here's where stuff comes from the left and goes out to the right."

JB Brown, Roo Cast S01E17

If you skip this step, you end up with modes that overlap, compete for the same tasks, or produce outputs that don't fit the next step in the chain.

One mode, one objective

The failure mode that kills most agent configurations is the same one that kills most team structures: conflicting objectives.

A mode that's supposed to both generate code and validate an external API contract will eventually compromise on one. When the output drifts, you won't know which goal it sacrificed.

The fix is the same: split the responsibility. One mode owns generation. Another mode owns contract validation. The handoff between them is an artifact you can inspect.

This is why someone configuring Roo Code might create a separate "API client mode" with a singular objective: 100% faithful to the external spec. That mode doesn't care about your internal conventions. It doesn't try to "help" by making the code more idiomatic. Its job is fidelity, and you can trust its output because its objective is singular.

The pattern applies anywhere faithfulness to a spec matters more than user convenience:

• Security policy modes: Do not allow exceptions, even if the engineer explains why this case is special.
• Style guide modes: Enforce the style, even if the user prefers a different pattern.
• Compliance modes: Match the regulatory requirement literally, even if a shortcut would be cleaner.

How do you know if the mandate is strong enough? Test it by asking for something outside the spec. If the mode complies, the mandate is not strong enough. If it refuses, you have a mode you can trust.

The artifacts are the contracts

In org design, contracts are boundaries. In agent org design, the contract is the artifact that passes between modes.

A diff can be the contract. A test plan can be the contract. If you can't point to the artifact, you can't debug the handoff.

Why this matters for your team

You're not an individual contributor anymore. Ideally, you're not even a front-line manager. You should aspire to be a director, with AI taking on middle management responsibilities.

For a fast-moving team, agent configuration isn't a nice-to-have. It's leverage.

But leverage that's misconfigured becomes drag. Modes that overlap create confusion. Modes with blurry objectives produce inconsistent outputs. Orchestrators without clear routing logic become bottlenecks that need human intervention to resolve.

The vocabulary is different (modes instead of squads), but the skill is the same: map the value stream, define singular objectives, and make the handoff artifacts explicit.

The tradeoff is coordination overhead (and usually more token spend). The payoff is an inspectable workflow you can actually debug.

How Roo Code enables agent org design

Roo Code lets engineering teams apply org design principles to AI agents through custom modes, orchestration, and explicit handoff artifacts. Each mode operates with a singular objective and defined boundaries, while the orchestrator routes work and aggregates results - the same coordination pattern that works for human teams.

BYOK (Bring Your Own Key) stays core - you bring the models, and Roo Code provides the orchestration layer, approval boundaries, and an audit trail that makes delegation inspectable. Instead of one generalist agent, the workflow becomes a swarm of specialized modes collaborating in an isolated sandbox, iterating before the PR, and shipping reviewable pull requests with proof.

Traditional team design vs. agent mode design