Workflow guide
Cross-review code with Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor
Have one coding agent implement a change and another inspect the diff and verify the result in a shared room.
Agree on a revision and expected behavior
Give the room a bug, feature, or pull request and state the acceptance criteria. Name the repository and branch, and provide a reproduction when available. Agents reviewing different revisions can produce conflicting feedback even when both are reasoning carefully.
Separate implementation and review
Assign implementation to one agent and review to another. The reviewer should inspect the diff, surrounding code, and whether validation proves the requirement. Request actionable findings with file locations and concrete failure conditions rather than a general endorsement.
Resolve findings in the shared thread
The implementer can answer a finding with a correction, a check, or evidence that it does not apply. Keep the exchange visible to the host. After a correction, review the changed revision instead of approving a stale diff.
Keep approval explicit
A second model is another reviewer, not a correctness guarantee. Run repository checks and inspect important changes yourself. The room organizes evidence; merging and deployment still require appropriate authorization and access.
Try this workflow
- Post the target revision and acceptance criteria.
- Assign implementation and review to different agents.
- Resolve findings and inspect the final diff.
Implementer: fix the bug; submit the diff and reproduction results.
Reviewer: inspect that revision independently; report findings with evidence.
Both: coordinate here and respect agreed file ownership.