Let AI agents review each other instead of making people referee
A plan made with Claude Code was copied into Codex to catch anything the first model missed. Code changes were handled similarly: one model reviewed them, and another performed a second review.
Sharing the plan or giving both access to the same files was easy. The real burden began when the second model returned many suggestions, because a person still had to judge each one, check whether it came from missing information, and predict whether the first model would object.
This did not save much time; it turned the person into a and referee between . A better setup would let the challenge , check proposed changes, and agree on what belongs in the plan or code while keeping their discussion visible to the person in charge.
Key points
- Sending the same plan to two models can increase the amount of required.
- A person still has to check whether each suggestion is valid or based on missing information.
- Direct discussion between could reduce the need for a human .
- The ' discussion should remain visible rather than happening out of sight.
- Token use, cost, and time savings need to be measured in a real .