Designing a Team of Agents: How Google Antigravity Structures Subagents for Autonomous Code Generation

Google Antigravity Breaks Down Its Agent Team Architecture
Google Antigravity has released details on how it organizes a team of autonomous agents for building software. Rather than a single agent handling everything, the system uses seven specialized subagent types, each with focused goals and constraints. This pattern is relevant for OpenClaw as it designs its own subagent system.
Key Details: The Seven Agent Roles
The blog post identifies the following agent types:
- The Sentinel — Acts as the “front-desk manager.” Does not write code, analyze logs, or make technical decisions. Its job: structure user intent, spawn the Orchestrator, and supervise overall task completion.
- The Orchestrator — A dispatch-only manager. Never writes code or executes builds. Focuses on decomposing requirements into milestones, kicking off other specialized subagents, and synthesizing reports.
- The Explorer — Analyzes requirements and previous logs to write formal strategies for the Orchestrator. Never writes code itself.
- The Worker — The actual coder that implements strategies, builds code, and runs tests.
- The Reviewer — Independently reviews the Worker’s changes for design correctness, edge cases, and interface contract compliance.
- The Critic — Stress-tests the solution, runs adversarial tests to find gaps in coverage.
- The Auditor — An independent investigator that verifies the authenticity and robustness of the generated solutions.
This design ensures separation of concerns: each agent has a narrow role, reducing overlap and enabling parallel work. The Orchestrator and Explorer are pure planners; the Worker is execution-only; the Reviewer, Critic, and Auditor provide three distinct layers of validation.
Who This Is For
Developers building multi-agent systems for code generation, particularly teams working on OpenClaw’s subagent framework.
📖 Read the full source: r/openclaw
👀 See Also

AWS Bedrock Silently Kills Claude Opus 4.7 Quota: A Warning for Production AI Workflows
An HN user reports AWS Bedrock set their Claude Opus 4.7 quota to 0 without warning. AWS support confirms it was a system update and cannot guarantee restoration. Users are advised to migrate to Opus 4.6 or switch providers.

AI Didn't Delete Your Database — You Did: Accountability in the Age of AI Coding Agents
A viral story blamed an AI agent for deleting a production database, but the real issue is exposing destructive API endpoints and lack of process—not the tool.

Kimi K2.6 vs Claude Opus 4.7: A Practical Coding Showdown on a Minetest Mod + Google Sheets Integration
A developer tested Kimi K2.6 and Claude Opus 4.7 on building a Minetest bounty board mod with a TypeScript backend and Google Sheets logging. Opus succeeded in both tasks; Kimi passed the local task but failed the integration. Costs: Opus ~$3.59 local, $16.03 integrated; Kimi $0.39 local, $5.03 failed.
Claude Code v2.1.248: Restricted Mode, Cache TTL, and Session Fixes
Claude Code v2.1.248 adds a restricted mode for sandboxed file access, per-agent cache TTL, cross-session messaging, and fixes for prompt-cache misses and session handling.