AI infrastructure / multi-agent systems
Agent teams assembled by configuration that review their own work
Core of a multi-agent platform built in 2.5 weeks: 29 declarative agents in three teams, agent-critic pairs, shared memory on four databases, five autonomy levels.
- Status
- In-house product
- Timeline
- 2.5 weeks (core)
- Stack
- Python
- LangGraph + LangChain
- FastMCP
- Redis / Qdrant / Neo4j / PostgreSQL
- OpenAI + Anthropic
- Docker + Traefik
The task
Ad-hoc LLM chains do not scale into a product platform: no task routing, no review of agent output, nothing accumulated between runs, and autonomy is all-or-nothing. We needed one core for several products — engineering, research and cognitive agent teams on a shared platform with quality control and managed autonomy.
What we built
- A declarative platform: agents, teams and pipelines are defined in YAML, and the execution graph is built at runtime. A new agent team is added by configuration, not by rewriting orchestration code.
- Quality is held by 10 agent-critic pairs, from tech lead to security red team. Critics score outputs across several dimensions and drive iterative rework; unresolved disputes go to the orchestrator.
- An agent registry matches tasks to executors by capability, role and tags; only knowledge that passes validation is committed to shared memory.
- Four memory circuits: episodic (Redis), semantic search (Qdrant), knowledge graph (Neo4j), tasks and audit log (PostgreSQL).
- Five autonomy levels with self-adjustment and human escalation; a meta-agent tracks team metrics and suggests topology changes. Managed via 34 MCP tools and a monitoring dashboard.
Outcome
- 25,000+
- lines of Python in the platform core across 134 modules, counted from the repository
- 29
- declarative agents in three ready-made teams — engineering, cognitive, research; counted from YAML specs
- 223
- automated tests at three levels: unit, integration, end-to-end; counted from the test suite
- 2.5 weeks
- from first commit to a working core with memory, agent-critic pairs and a dashboard, per repository history
More cases
Aviation — aircraft components trading and MRO
PilotAircraft parts procurement: from inbox chaos to a managed pipeline
An AI agent reads incoming RFQs, compares supplier quotes and checks trace documents; an operations system moves each deal through mandatory stages.
- Full loop
- full AI loop on a live procurement process — from incoming RFQ to team notification; confirmed by the owner
- 3
- types of trace documents checked by the agent: FAA 8130-3, EASA Form 1, COC; counted from the owner's brief
Distribution · Partner networks
In productionA sales and support platform for a distributed partner network
Partners ask who on their team is inactive and what blocks the next level — and get numbers for their own part of the network only, enforced at the SQL level.
- 20 of 21
- UAT checks passed on the client's live back-office database (reconciliation protocol); one partial — no last-activity date in the data
- 10 of 10
- question categories from the assistant behaviour spec (~25 scenarios) implemented; one sub-item outstanding (checklist count)
Music tech · SaaS
MVP in operation (closed launch)Music releases without missed deadlines
Release ops for independent labels: 9-stage lifecycle, pitching deadlines for 12 stores, AI drafts with human approval. Zero to production-grade in 7 weeks.
- 7 weeks
- from first commit to a production-grade stack with Vault, encrypted backups, SLOs and a move to a Russian data centre (265 commits)
- 16 days
- from project start to an investor presentation with a live product demo
Estimate the impact on your own figures
AVA is a process-economics calculator. In a couple of minutes it shows whether a similar task pays off in your case — before any call and with no commitment.
Estimate the impact with AVAHave a similar task?
Describe the process and the data you have. We will tell you what can be measured in money and what cannot — before any work starts.
or email us directly: hello@xteam.pro