You have a vague idea, a set of hard constraints, and a massive gap between where you are and the prototype you need to show stakeholders.
Usually, closing that gap takes weeks of literature review, hardware sourcing, and frontend mocking.
Yesterday, I did it in 20 minutes.
I didn’t do it by writing code from scratch. I did it by turning an LLM into a cross-functional team of experts, and then utilized context-switching mid-conversation to move from theoretical hardware design to a working software simulation.
Here is how I used multi-agent orchestration to turn a one-sentence idea into a fully visualized product dashboard.
The Architecture: 4 Agents using Grok 4.20 (Beta)
For complex system design, a single perspective isn't enough. An engineer might ignore the user experience; a data scientist might ignore the mud on the lens.
To solve this, I used Grok 4.20 (beta) and contexted four distinct, conflicting personalities within a single system prompt:
- Agent 1 (The Engineer): Specializes in edge-case instruments and hardware constraints.
- Agent 2 (The Data Scientist): Specializes in ML models and computer vision.
- Agent 3 (The Skeptical Cowboy): A practical end-user who hates tech for tech’s sake and needs tools to work in the dust and heat.
- Agent 4 (The Manager): Aggregates the conversation and provides the final recommendation.
The Value of the Adversarial Pragmatis
The Skeptical Cowboy was the critical node in this network. By explicitly instructing an agent to be highly skeptical, I forced the model to stress-test its own hallucinations.
When the Engineer proposed a solution, the Cowboy implicitly forced a reality check regarding Black Angus identification in low-contrast lighting, mud, and erratic animal behavior. This created a feedback loop where the Manager agent only approved ideas that survived the Cowboy’s scrutiny.
The Pivot: Context-Switching Agent 1
Initially, Agent 1 (The Engineer) was focused on the physical constraints: power budgets, camera angles, and processing speeds. We spent the first half of the conversation locking down the theoretical architecture: selecting the Raspberry Pi 5, the Hailo-8L accelerator, and the camera placement.
But once the hardware architecture was defined, I didn't need a hardware engineer anymore. I needed a frontend developer to visualize the data stream.
In a traditional workflow, you would start a new chat or hire a new freelancer. In an agentic workflow, I simply pivoted Agent 1’s context.
I realized that since Agent 1 already knew the constraints (data update rates, camera views, specific behavioral metrics), they were the perfect candidate to build the simulation of that hardware.
I told the system: “Agent 1: You are now a specialist in UX/UI design.”
Then gave instructions to the system to build an .html simulation of the system we just developed.
Why This Works
This is the power of stateful context. If I had asked a generic AI to build a dashboard, it would have given me generic placeholders.
But because Agent 1 had just spent 10 minutes debating the Cowboy about specific breed identification (Black Angus) and behavioral tracking (water vs. feed time), the dashboard it generated was context-aware.
- It didn't just label a box Camera 1. It was labeled as the Water Trough Cam because the Engineer knew that was the best angle for facial ID.
- It didn't just say Status: Good. It created specific metrics for Time at Feed vs. Time at Water because the Data Scientist agent had previously identified those as the key features for this specific model.
Granted, this was not a first-shot build. The first time I asked for a .html simulation, it provided a .html of all the specs and hardware we had previously reviewed. I had to ask for a dashboard simulation, specifically after it provided the first .html. This is crucial because while the ability to context switch is inherent, it is not immediate. Kind of like tacking a sailboat rather than turning a jet ski.
The Artifact: From Chat to Reality
The result wasn't a paragraph of text. It was a single-file HTML simulation that I could open in a browser immediately.
It featured:
- Simulated live camera feeds (using placeholders) matched to the hardware specs.
- A scrolling activity log that matched the data frequency we discussed.
- A Cow Roster populated with the specific breed data we agreed upon.
By dynamically shifting the agent's role from Hardware Theory to Software Simulation, I bypassed the translation error that usually happens between backend and frontend teams. The Engineer built the interface for the exact machine they had just "designed."
The Lesson
We often talk about AI writing code, but we rarely talk about AI hallucinating prototypes.
In this interaction, I didn't write a single line of CSS or JS. I didn't solder a board. Yet, I have a working simulation that runs in a browser and looks like a finished product.
For developers and researchers, the lesson is simple:
- Don't prompt one bot; prompt a diverse team with specific goals.
- Don't abandon your agents once the theory is done. Repurpose your Engineer into a Simulator. Use their deep knowledge of the constraints to build the visualization.
- Be aware that the context switch may not be a first-shot response, and be prepared to prompt your pivot
Rapid prototyping is not full-stack development; however, the barrier to explicitly communicating complicated backend concepts has been reduced significantly with the effective utilization of tools like Grok 4.20 (Beta).