Ran into this enough times to stop trusting my own agent’s self-review: I ask it to fix something, it produces code that looks right, I skim it, ship it — and the actual bug was a quiet semantic shift (inclusive bounds became exclusive) that had nothing to do with what I asked for. The model that wrote the change has no incentive or independent angle to catch its own blind spot; it’s grading its own homework. So I built a small tool that splits the two roles: one Gemini pass generates the change from your instruction, a second, independent pass gets ONLY the result (no visibility into the first pass’s reasoning) and is told to find problems with it. Being honest about the setup: I only have a Gemini API key, so this is two passes on different Gemini tiers, not genuine cross-vendor review (GPT generates / Claude audits would probably be stronger — that’s a cost thing, not a design choice). The interesting part is how often the critique pass disagrees over something that isn’t wrong, just risky — an edge case, a silent behavior change, a severity call that’s genuinely debatable. Paste a snippet + an instruction and it’ll run both passes live if anyone wants to see where it agrees or argues: https://apptechlab.com/p/codearbiter/ (mine, no signup, real API calls both ways). Curious what people running actual multi-agent review setups have found:
- Does routing generate/critique to different providers actually catch categorically different things, or mostly the same stuff with more latency?
- How do you handle the critique pass being wrong — do you ever adjudicate disagreements with a third pass, or is two enough in practice? submitted by /u/GiiTZzz
Originally posted by u/GiiTZzz on r/ClaudeCode