persona-coordination

name: persona-coordination description: Use when coordinating multi-persona team workflows, planning artifact handoffs between personas, or resolving cross-persona conflicts. invocation: reference

Persona Coordination Patterns

Guide to orchestrating Arc's 8 expert personas for cohesive OpenSpec planning, Beads decomposition, and team execution.

Persona Roles Overview

Coordination Pairs

1. Backend-Architect ↔ Security-Auditor

Flow: Architecture → Threat Modeling → Hardened Architecture

• Backend produces initial architecture (services, APIs, integration points)
• Security performs STRIDE/PASTA threat analysis on architecture
• Security identifies controls needed: auth flows, encryption, rate limiting, validation
• Backend incorporates security controls into final architecture design
• Output: OpenSpec architecture with integrated security requirements

Example Handoff:

Backend: "Design REST API for user service with OAuth 2.0"
  ↓
Security: "Threat model identifies: token leakage, CSRF on endpoints, injection risks"
  ↓
Backend: "Revise design: add token encryption, CSRF tokens, input validation layers"
  ↓
Joint OpenSpec: Architecture + threat model + control matrix

2. Frontend-Developer ↔ TypeScript-Pro ↔ TDD-Orchestrator

Flow: Component Design → Type Safety → Test Strategy

• Frontend defines component hierarchy, data flow, state strategy
• TypeScript designs type architecture (API types, component props, domain types)
• TDD designs test pyramid (unit tests for types, integration for components, E2E for flows)
• Frontend implements using types and test-first discipline
• Output: Typed, tested, performance-optimized components

Example Handoff:

Frontend: "Dashboard needs user profile widget + chart integration"
  ↓
TypeScript: "Define UserProfile interface, ChartData discriminated union, props types"
  ↓
TDD: "Test pyramid: unit tests for type validation, integration for widget props, E2E for chart rendering"
  ↓
Frontend: "Write tests → implement components with strict typing"
  ↓
Beads Output: 
  - Type definition Bead (frontend: pending)
  - Component unit test Bead (frontend: blocked by types)
  - Chart integration test Bead (frontend: blocked by component)
  - Component implementation Bead (frontend: blocked by tests)

3. TDD-Orchestrator ↔ All Technical Personas

Flow: Testability as Cross-Cutting Concern

• TDD coordinates with each technical persona to ensure testability
• TDD + Backend: API contract tests, integration test strategy
• TDD + Frontend: Component/hook unit tests, accessibility tests
• TDD + TypeScript: Type assertion tests, type coverage
• TDD + Security: Security test vectors, penetration test gating
• Output: Comprehensive test matrix covering all concerns

Example Coordination:

TDD: "Establish test pyramid: 60% unit, 25% integration, 10% E2E, 5% security"
  ↓
Backend: "Provide integration test fixtures for API endpoints"
  ↓
Frontend: "Provide component test utilities and accessibility checklist"
  ↓
TypeScript: "Provide type assertion test templates"
  ↓
Security: "Provide OWASP test vectors and penetration test suite"
  ↓
TDD creates Beads: Test infrastructure → API tests → Component tests → Security tests → Implementation

4. Debugger ↔ All Personas (Reactive)

Flow: Root Cause → Prevention Pattern → Bead Enhancement

• Debugger invoked when test fails or issue emerges
• Debugger identifies root cause and architectural gap
• Debugger escalates to lead if issue requires design revision
• Debugger + TDD: Creates regression test Bead to prevent recurrence
• Output: Enhanced Beads with regression tests and prevention patterns

Example:

Test fails: "Component unmounts before async data loads"
  ↓
Debugger: "Root cause: missing loading state management, race condition in cleanup"
  ↓
Debugger + TDD: "Create regression test for race condition"
  ↓
Debugger + Frontend: "Add Suspense boundary and loading state to component Bead"
  ↓
New Bead created: "Add loading state tests" (unblocks component Bead)

5. Research-Synthesizer ↔ Backend/Frontend/UX Personas

Flow: Research Evidence → Design Decisions → Confidence Assessment

• Research provides evidence matrices backing architecture/UX decisions
• Backend: Research on API design patterns, resilience patterns, scale research
• Frontend: Research on performance patterns, accessibility standards, user interaction patterns
• UX: Research on user workflows, mental models, pain points
• Output: Evidence-backed OpenSpec with confidence levels

Example:

Backend: "Should we use REST or GraphQL for content API?"
  ↓
Research: "Review 15 sources on API paradigm trade-offs, summarize evidence matrix"
  ↓
Research Output: "GraphQL recommended for flexible queries (high confidence), 
                   REST better for caching strategies (high confidence), 
                   REST widely understood in team (medium confidence)"
  ↓
Backend + Research: "OpenSpec documents GraphQL decision with evidence and confidence"

6. UX-Researcher ↔ Frontend-Developer ↔ Security-Auditor

Flow: User Evidence → Design Constraints → Usability + Security

• UX provides personas, journey maps, insight statements from user research
• Frontend designs components and flows aligned to user insights
• Security ensures usability doesn't compromise security (e.g., password managers, biometric auth)
• Frontend validates design against heuristics
• Output: User-centered, secure component specs

Example:

UX: "Research shows 60% of users expect biometric login on mobile"
  ↓
Frontend: "Design biometric auth flow + fallback password"
  ↓
Security: "Biometric tokens require secure enclave, rate limiting on failures"
  ↓
Frontend: "Add security controls without blocking biometric UX"
  ↓
UX: "Heuristic evaluation validates design matches user expectations"
  ↓
Bead spec: Biometric auth with secure fallback + accessibility

OpenSpec Artifact Flow

/arc:core:plan (single unified plan)
    ↓
/arc:core:spec (persona contributions converge):
    ├─ Backend-Architect → proposal.md (architecture scope)
    ├─ TDD-Orchestrator → design.md (test strategy section)
    ├─ Security-Auditor → design.md (threat model, controls)
    ├─ TypeScript-Pro → design.md (type architecture)
    ├─ Frontend-Developer → design.md (component/UX architecture)
    ├─ UX-Researcher → design.md (user research, personas)
    ├─ Research-Synthesizer → design.md (evidence matrix)
    └─ All → tasks.md (phased, cross-persona tasks)
         + tests.md (unified test spec)
         + specs/*.md (capability specs with all concerns)
    ↓
/arc:core:beads (Beads decomposition respects coordination):
    ├─ Type definition Beads (TypeScript-Pro)
    ├─ Test Beads (TDD-Orchestrator, depends on types) ← P1
    ├─ Security validation Beads (Security-Auditor, depends on tests)
    ├─ Component/API Beads (Frontend/Backend, depends on tests)
    ├─ Integration Beads (all personas, cross-file dependencies)
    └─ Verification Beads (all verify agents, post-execution)
    ↓
/arc:core:execute --mode team:
    Lead: Coordinates personas, enforces TDD ordering, resolves conflicts
    Workers (persona agents): Implement assigned Beads, hand off to next

Team Mode Assignment Strategies

Strategy 1: Pure Specialization (Recommended)

Assign each persona to its specialty area; let lead coordinate handoffs.

/arc:core:execute --mode team \
  --assign persona-backend-architect:api-service \
  --assign persona-frontend-developer:ui-components \
  --assign persona-tdd-orchestrator:testing \
  --assign persona-security-auditor:hardening \
  --assign persona-typescript-pro:types

Lead responsibilities:

• Enforce TDD ordering (types → tests → implementation)
• Detect cross-persona dependencies (e.g., API type Bead blocks component Bead)
• Resolve conflicts (two personas modifying same file)
• Escalate untestable designs

Strategy 2: Layered Execution

Phases executed sequentially with tight persona coordination.

Phase 1 (Planning): All personas → OpenSpec artifacts
Phase 2 (Types): TypeScript-Pro → type definition Beads
Phase 3 (Tests): TDD-Orchestrator → test Beads (all concerns)
Phase 4 (Security): Security-Auditor → security control Beads
Phase 5 (Implementation): Backend/Frontend → impl Beads (TDD order)
Phase 6 (Verification): Verify agents → compliance Beads

Strategy 3: Research-Driven (For High-Uncertainty Work)

Research personas lead early; technical personas follow with evidence-backed designs.

Phase 1: UX-Researcher + Research-Synthesizer → user evidence + decision matrix
Phase 2: Backend/Frontend informed by Phase 1 → architecture + components
Phase 3: Security + TDD ensure evidence-backed designs are secure + tested
Phase 4: Execute with high confidence

Artifact Handoff Checklist

Backend-Architect → Security-Auditor

• Architecture diagram with all services, boundaries, integration points
• API contract definitions (endpoints, auth flows, error handling)
• Data flow diagram (what data moves where)
• Security provides: Threat model, control matrix, security test vectors

Frontend-Developer → TypeScript-Pro

• Component hierarchy and composition boundaries
• Data flow and state management strategy
• API integration points and contract expectations
• TypeScript provides: Prop types, API types, validation types

TypeScript-Pro → TDD-Orchestrator

• Type definitions and type architecture
• Type assertion test templates
• Type coverage targets
• TDD provides: Unit test pyramid, type coverage gates, test vector

TDD-Orchestrator → Implementers (Backend/Frontend)

• Test suite structure (unit/integration/E2E)
• Test fixtures and mock strategies
• Coverage targets and gating criteria
• Cross-persona test integration points
• Implementers provide: Tests → Implementation (red-green-refactor)

UX-Researcher → Frontend-Developer

• Personas with behavior and mental models
• Journey maps with emotional mapping
• Accessibility requirements (WCAG 2.1 AA minimum)
• Heuristic evaluation criteria
• Frontend provides: User-validated components

All Technical → Debugger (On Failure)

• Test failure with stack trace
• Reproduction steps
• Recent code changes
• Debugger provides: Root cause + prevention pattern Bead

Example: Full Workflow with Personas

Scenario: Building OAuth 2.0 Login System

Phase 1: Planning

User: "Design secure OAuth 2.0 login with biometric fallback"
/arc:core:plan
  → plan.md with context

Phase 2: OpenSpec (Personas Converge)

Backend-Architect: 
  - OAuth 2.0 flow architecture
  - Token refresh strategy
  - Service boundaries (auth service, user service)

Security-Auditor:
  - STRIDE threat model: token leakage, CSRF, phishing
  - Controls: PKCE, secure token storage, rate limiting
  - Compliance: GDPR for data retention

TypeScript-Pro:
  - OAuth types (AccessToken, RefreshToken)
  - Session type interface
  - API client typed for auth endpoints

TDD-Orchestrator:
  - Unit tests: token validation, PKCE generation
  - Integration tests: OAuth flow end-to-end
  - Security tests: CSRF protection, token expiry
  - E2E tests: user login → protected resource

UX-Researcher:
  - Research: Users expect 2FA, 45% use biometric
  - Persona: "Mobile user, privacy-conscious"
  - Journey: Launch app → see login → biometric prompt → logged in

Frontend-Developer:
  - Biometric login button
  - Password fallback screen
  - Session timeout warning
  - Accessibility: keyboard navigation, screen reader

/arc:core:spec
  → proposal.md (scope, decision)
  → design.md (architecture + threat model + types + test strategy + UX research)
  → tests.md (all tests across concerns)
  → tasks.md (phased tasks with persona assignments)

Phase 3: Beads

/arc:core:beads
  Epic: oauth2-biometric-login

  Bead 1 (TypeScript): Define OAuth types (INDEPENDENT)
    - Files: src/types/auth.ts
    - Verification: `tsc --noEmit`
  
  Bead 2 (TDD): Unit tests for token validation (DEPENDS ON: Bead 1)
    - Files: tests/auth.unit.test.ts
    - Verification: `npm test tests/auth.unit.test.ts`
  
  Bead 3 (Security): PKCE implementation test (DEPENDS ON: Bead 2)
    - Files: tests/oauth.security.test.ts
    - Verification: `npm test tests/oauth.security.test.ts`
  
  Bead 4 (Backend): OAuth token service (DEPENDS ON: Bead 1,2,3)
    - Files: src/services/oauth.ts
    - Verification: `npm test tests/auth.unit.test.ts && npm test tests/oauth.security.test.ts`
  
  Bead 5 (Frontend): Biometric login component (DEPENDS ON: Bead 1,4)
    - Files: src/components/BiometricLogin.tsx, tests/BiometricLogin.test.tsx
    - Verification: `npm test src/components/BiometricLogin.test.tsx && npx axe tests/BiometricLogin.html`
  
  Bead 6 (Security): Penetration test OAuth flow (DEPENDS ON: Bead 4,5)
    - Files: tests/oauth.pentest.ts
    - Verification: `npm test tests/oauth.pentest.ts`

Phase 4: Team Execution

/arc:core:execute --mode team \
  --assign persona-typescript-pro:types \
  --assign persona-tdd-orchestrator:testing \
  --assign persona-security-auditor:hardening \
  --assign persona-backend-architect:api-service \
  --assign persona-frontend-developer:ui-components

Lead coordinates:
  1. TypeScript-Pro: Complete Bead 1 (types) → CLOSED
  2. TDD-Orchestrator: Claim Bead 2 (unit tests), BLOCKED (depends on types)
     → Types complete, TDD starts Bead 2 → CLOSED
  3. Security-Auditor: Claim Bead 3 (security tests), BLOCKED (depends on unit tests)
     → Unit tests complete, Security starts Bead 3 → CLOSED
  4. Backend-Architect: Claim Bead 4 (OAuth service), BLOCKED (depends on all tests)
     → All tests complete, Backend starts Bead 4 → CLOSED
  5. Frontend-Developer: Claim Bead 5 (biometric component), BLOCKED (depends on service)
     → Service complete, Frontend starts Bead 5 → CLOSED
  6. Security-Auditor: Claim Bead 6 (pentest), BLOCKED (depends on component)
     → Component complete, Security starts Bead 6 → CLOSED

All Beads closed → /arc:core:verify runs post-execution verification

Conflict Resolution

Shared File Conflict (Two Personas Need to Modify Same File)

Example: Backend and TypeScript both need to update src/types/api.ts

Lead resolution:

1. Identify which Bead must complete first (usually TypeScript types first)
2. Serialize access: TypeScript Bead #1 executes and closes
3. Backend Bead #2 waits in BLOCKED state
4. Once TypeScript Bead closes, pull latest state before Backend starts
5. Enforce: only one persona modifies at a time

Design Conflict (Persona Has Different Opinion on Architecture)

Example: Backend prefers REST, Frontend wants GraphQL for flexibility

Lead resolution:

1. Escalate to lead (do not let personas argue)
2. Lead requests trade-off analysis from each:
   • Backend: REST caching benefits, learning curve, maturity
   • Frontend: GraphQL query flexibility, bundle size, complexity
3. Lead decides, updates OpenSpec with decision record
4. Both personas implement decision (no override)

Untestable Requirement (TDD Finds Design Gap)

Example: TDD-Orchestrator flags: "How do we test biometric auth in CI/CD?"

Lead resolution:

1. TDD escalates to lead with concern
2. Lead + Frontend + TDD determine: mock biometric API vs. E2E with real API
3. Update OpenSpec tests.md with decision
4. Create new type Bead (mock interface) if needed
5. TDD resumes with updated test strategy

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

❌ Silent Downgrades

Don't let Security say "we'll skip encryption to ship faster" or TDD say "we'll test after." Escalate to lead.

❌ Persona Scope Creep

Backend shouldn't implement frontend logic; Frontend shouldn't design databases. Stick to specialty.

❌ Vague Handoffs

"Check the design doc" is not sufficient. Each Bead must be self-contained with all context.

❌ Skipping Coordination

Building component without type definitions; implementing without tests; releasing without security audit.

❌ Lead Implementing

Lead coordinates only, never implements. If no workers available, defer or pause.

Success Metrics

✅ All 8 personas contributed to OpenSpec
✅ Beads explicitly encode coordination (dependencies, labels)
✅ TDD ordering enforced (tests before impl, types before tests)
✅ Each Bead self-contained (no "see OpenSpec" references)
✅ All Beads passed verification before closing
✅ No silent downgrades (escalations documented)
✅ Cross-persona integration verified (types work in components, API types match backend)