Cross-Context Review: Improving LLM Output Quality by Separating Production and Review Sessions

Large language models now generate code, documentation, and analyses, and are increasingly used to review such output. We ask when a second review by a different model helps. Building on the author's earlier preprints, which varied context, repetition, and role structure within one model, we test model independence in a controlled experiment: 30 artifacts with 150 planted errors, 10 review conditions, and 900 review sessions with three reviewer models from two developers. In this experiment, (1) a top-tier cross-model reviewer is not significantly different in F1 from same-model review in a fresh session (CCR), which does not establish equivalence; (2) the two find partly different errors (Jaccard 41.2%); and (3) at two review calls, one CCR plus one cross-model review matches more planted errors than two CCR reviews (56.7% vs. 42.7%; Holm-adjusted p=.006), but not significantly more than two reviews by the top-tier cross-model reviewer, so model difference and reviewer capability are not separated. A lightweight cross-model reviewer scores no higher than same-model review. Withholding requirements from the reviewer raises F1 for the two lower tiers but not the top tier, in untested point estimates whose pattern depends on how failed sessions are scored. Before analysis we audited all session records, excluding one baseline run of uncertain provenance and 14 failed calls; results with all sessions are also reported. A partial check on public detector outputs from another benchmark neither replicates nor contradicts the main comparison. Records, artifacts, and scripts are available from the author on request.

Developers increasingly use two coding agents together: one writes a draft, and the other reviews it. However, it is not clear whether the pairing is worth its cost and time, or whether the order of the pairing matters. We run a controlled experiment on 116 recent hard and medium lcb tasks with Claude and Codex across six conditions to approximate a software practitioner's workflow: both solo baselines, both cross-model orderings, and both same-model orderings. The reviewer sees the problem and the writer's draft but cannot execute tests, which approximates a code review step. Claude review raises Codex drafts from 71.6% to 89.7% ($p_{BH}=.001$); Codex self review raises them to 84.5% ($p_{BH}=.022$). The reverse direction does not pay off: Codex reviewing Claude drafts drops the pass rate from 91.4% to 82.8% ($p_{BH}=.046$), and Claude self review leaves the 91.4% baseline unchanged. Our evaluation indicates that the useful pairing is asymmetric: use Claude to review Codex, not the other way around.

Large language models can generate plausible code-review comments, but such comments may contain technically incorrect claims that mislead developers. We study technical trustworthiness judgment: determining whether a review comment's core technical claims are correct and applicable to the reviewed code in its repository context. Existing code-review benchmarks primarily evaluate review generation, issue discovery, or general comment quality, but do not directly assess whether an agent can determine the technical trustworthy of an individual review comment. To fill this gap, we introduce CRJudgeBench, a benchmark of 1199 instances constructed from real pull requests and expert-verified perturbations, covering both trustworthy and plausible but untrustworthy comments. We further present Sentinel, a repository-grounded agentic judge that actively gathers code evidence to verify review comments before making judgments. Starting from Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct, Sentinel is trained on the CRJudgeBench training split through iterative action-level learning from a privileged teacher. On the 359-instance CRJudgeBench test set, Sentinel achieves 76.60% accuracy, outperforming GLM-5.3 by 6.13 percentage points and its base model by 19.78 points. These results show that even state-of-the-art general-purpose LLMs struggle to identify untrustworthy comments, while iterative action-level learning substantially improves the accuracy of repository-grounded trustworthiness judgments. Our dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/dcloud347/CRJudgeBenchmark