I let Codex review the PR Claude wrote
Summary
An individual shares an experience where Codex reviewed a pull request written by Claude, finding a real bug that another tool also flagged, raising questions about the efficacy of having multiple AI agents check each other's work.
Similar Articles
Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code
Introduces adamsreview, an open-source Claude Code plugin that enhances pull request reviews using a multi-agent pipeline with parallel sub-agents, validation gates, and an automated fix loop to detect more bugs with fewer false positives.
@GergelyOrosz: Fascinating to look at PRs in the Bun repo: much of it is AI reviewers talking with AI bots...! CodeRabbit and Claude r…
Observing that many PRs in the Bun repo feature AI reviewers (CodeRabbit and Claude) interacting with AI bots (Robobun), highlighting the increasing role of AI in code review.
@ClaudeDevs: New in Claude Code: /ultrareview (research preview) runs a fleet of bug-hunting agents in the cloud. Findings land in t…
Claude Code introduces /ultrareview, a cloud-based fleet of AI agents that automatically hunt for bugs before merging critical changes.
@theo: I underestimated how cool this workflow is. Had Codex go through a bunch of stale PRs last night. Closed all the useles…
A developer describes using AI (Codex) to automatically clean up stale pull requests: close useless ones and revive outdated ones with build and review threads.
We pointed our consensus loop at a fork of codex, now codex fixing codex, here's the public repo
A team demonstrates a consensus loop where multiple AI agents debate bug fixes in a fork of the codex CLI, automatically creating PRs when they converge. The public repository is available for scrutiny.