u/Stunning-Way-7527

Saw one of those "stop running one big agent loop, design the flow" posts on X. Instead of just nodding along, we turned it into an experiment:

1. Gave the article to Claude Code and asked it to audit our repo against the article's five patterns (sequential chain, router, fan-out, loop-with-gate, human gate). Nice meta-detail: it spawned a read-only Explore subagent to do the inventory — so the answer to "should we fan out more?" was itself produced by a fan-out.
2. Gave the exact same article + repo to Codex as a fully independent second opinion. No cross-contamination between the two.
3. Diffed the two reports. Both independently landed on the same core verdict: our deterministic gates (preflight scripts, validation gates, git hooks) already beat an LLM-routed graph for production work — the real gaps were (a) parallel read-only research and (b) an adversarial evidence reviewer.
4. Implemented only the intersection — the recommendations both models absolutely agreed on. Everything only one of them wanted went to a later/maybe list. Bonus: cross-checking the second opinion's claims surfaced a real governance bug (a skill that quietly bypassed our ID-locking script). Fixed the same day.

Evidence-reviewer created: Adversarial read-only subagent with ten review axes derived from the codified evidence rules (five-stage labeling, n<10 never a headline, FALLE-14/-18, tier discipline, quota eras, "page missing" evidence requirement, GSC before Sistrix). Tools intentionally limited to Read, Grep, Glob - no Bash, making it guaranteed read-only, unlike the yaml-safety-reviewer. "Use proactively" prior to submitting data-heavy findings and on fan-out results. Available as a subagent type starting next session.

Question for the sub: does anyone else work like this — using an article as an audit lens, two competing models as independent reviewers, and only shipping the intersection? Curious what your setups look like.