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 sentence 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 the contract between services - you already know how to configure AI agents.

The same principles apply. A mode with two objectives, like a team with two managers, won't reliably deliver either. An orchestrator without clear input and output boundaries becomes a coordination bottleneck. Responsibility delegation that works on paper falls apart when the handoff artifacts aren't defined.

Engineering leaders who have structured teams before have this skill. They just need to recognize they're now org-designing their agents.

"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 is the coordinator that routes work to the right mode and aggregates results back.

"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 adherence to an external API contract will eventually compromise on one. When the generated code drifts, you don't know if it's because the mode prioritized speed, or because it deprioritized contract fidelity.

The fix is the same as the org design fix: 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 team org design, the contract between teams is often a document, an API spec, or an agreed-upon interface. In agent org design, the contract is the artifact that passes between modes.

If Mode A produces a diff and Mode B reviews that diff, the diff is the contract. If Mode A produces a test plan and Mode B executes it, the test plan is the contract.

When artifacts aren't explicit, handoffs fail silently. The reviewing mode doesn't know what the generating mode was optimizing for. The executing mode doesn't know what the planning mode assumed about the environment.

Define the artifacts. Make them inspectable. That's how you debug agent configurations the same way you debug team configurations: by looking at what crossed the boundary.

Why this matters for your team

For a Series A - C team with five engineers trying to ship like a team of fifteen, 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 good news: if you've built teams before, you've already solved this problem. The vocabulary is different (modes instead of squads, orchestrators instead of tech leads), but the skill is the same.

Map the value stream. Define singular objectives. Make the handoff artifacts explicit.

You're not learning something new. You're applying something you already know to a new surface.

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.

With BYOK (bring your own key), teams control their AI infrastructure without vendor lock-in. Roo Code closes the loop by proposing diffs, running commands, and iterating based on results - all within boundaries you define. The mode system makes responsibility delegation explicit: you can create specialized modes for code generation, contract validation, security review, or any other singular objective your workflow requires.

For engineering leaders who have structured teams before, configuring Roo Code modes uses the same skill set - you're applying org design principles to a new surface.

Traditional team design vs. agent mode design