Alternating Agent Reviews Can Make Code Worse
jimmykoppel · x · 2026-07-15
I've pushed the "Codex review → Claude fix" loop to its absolute limit.
For large PRs, this iterative back-and-forth often degrades quality, leaving you worse off than the original draft. The author concludes that having multiple agents continuously hunt for issues with fresh context doesn't automatically yield better code. True human judgment is still required to dictate which issues are actually "must-fix" and which changes are worth accepting.
More from coding & agent
- diginomica: agentic automation hype is overdone, and 'The Hackening' of enterprise security has begun — jonerp · 2026-10-26
- 'Vibe verification': ~60% of AI-written formal specs prove the wrong property — basedjensen · 2026-10-26
- Devin launches Security suite powered by Claude Mythos with $100M+ credits — DevinAI · 2026-10-26
- HackBench injects reward hacks into agent trajectories to stress-test monitors — DanielKhashabi · 2026-10-26
- Hugging Face ships hf CLI updates: deduped cache saves 19GB, faster buckets, retryable GPU jobs — yb2698 · 2026-10-26
- One prompt, full Blender animation: dev says he never touched Blender once — iamfakhrealam · 2026-10-26