I do it as well. I have a Claude code instance running in my backend repo, and one running in my frontend repo. If there is required coordination, I have the backend agent write a report for the front end agent about the new backend capabilities, or have the front end agent write a report requesting a new endpoint that would simplify the code.

Lots of other people also follow the architect and builder pattern, where one agent architects the feature while the other agent does the actual implementation.

Sure. But at no point do you need to talk about the existence of other agents. You talk about making a plan, and you talk about implementing the plan. There's no need to talk about where the plan came from.

Because the plan involves using multiple agents with different roles and I don't want them conflicting.

Sure there's no need to explicitly mention the agents themselves, but it also shouldn't trigger a pseudo-jealous panic with trash talk and a sudden `git reset --hard` either.

And also ideally the agents would be aware of one another's strengths and weaknesses and actually play to them rather than sabotaging the whole effort.

It's not a whole conversation it's like "hey I'm using claude code to do analysis and this is what it said" or "gemini just used its large context window to get a bird's eye view of the code and this is what it saw".