The current fashion is to solve every problem by adding another agent. One to plan, one to research, one to critique, one to critique the critic. It looks impressive in a diagram. In practice most of these setups fall over for a boring reason, and it is not the number of agents.
The bottleneck was never the intelligence. It is that nobody wrote down clearly what done means. You can point the smartest model in the world at a vague request and it will confidently build the wrong thing, because you gave it room to guess. Add five more agents and you have five more chances to guess wrong.
I build software by writing a specification precise enough that an assistant can implement it without asking me a single clarifying question. Not a long document. A clear one. What it must do, what counts as correct, what the edges are. When the spec is that tight, one agent is plenty, and the result is something you can actually trust.
Try it on your next task. Before you open any tool, write three lines. What should this produce, how will I know it is right, and what should it never do. If you cannot answer those in plain language, no amount of agents will save you. If you can, you will be surprised how little machinery you actually need.