Adversarial Review: Structured Disagreement for Grounded Agentic Code Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18167v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 21:58:17 GMT
• Title: Adversarial Review: Structured Disagreement for Grounded Agentic Code Review
• Abstract summary: We study whether a subagent paradigm can support a middle ground: minimal agentic cooperation without the overhead of large multi-agent teams.<n>We introduce Adversarial Review (AR), a minimal cooperative code-review protocol in which a main coding agent works with a reviewer and a critic agent.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Early multi-agent LLM systems often used role-separated teams, yet scaling agent count yields diminishing returns on repository-level coding tasks. Recent alternatives treat agents as passive tools (subagents), yet this removes the benefits of agent interaction entirely. We study whether a subagent paradigm can support a middle ground: minimal agentic cooperation without the overhead of large multi-agent teams. We introduce Adversarial Review (AR), a minimal cooperative code-review protocol in which a main coding agent works with a reviewer and a critic agent. The reviewer evaluates code, while the critic audits the review through structured disagreement before the main agent edits. On LiveCodeBench, AR achieves the highest pass rate among tested methods, outperforming a five-agent baseline while using only three agents. On SWE-PRBench, naive AR exposes a false-consensus failure mode, where agents converge on agreement without sufficient evidence, but a single prompt iteration that adds disagreement explicitly achieves the highest F1 among tested methods. On SWE-bench Verified, AR also shows improvements over the baselines on repository-level coding tasks. Together, AR demonstrates that cooperative code review does not require many agents or complex communication structures: it requires that disagreement be minimal, structured, and evidence-grounded.

Related papers

• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• Code as Agent Harness [107.31925305395957]
  In emerging agentic systems, code is no longer only a target output.<n>Code increasingly serves as an operational substrate for agent reasoning, acting, environment modeling, and execution-based verification.<n>This survey provides a unified roadmap toward executable, verifiable, and stateful AI agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:59:03Z)
• TeamTR: Trust-Region Fine-Tuning for Multi-Agent LLM Coordination [11.65571332626047]
  TeamTR is a trust-region framework that resamples trajectories after each component update and enforces per-agent divergence control.<n>We show that TeamTR outperforms single-agent and sequential baselines with 7.1% on average, mitigates coordination regressions, and supports plug-and-play component replacement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T23:42:57Z)
• OrgAgent: Organize Your Multi-Agent System like a Company [75.47076168155817]
  We introduce OrgAgent, a company-style hierarchical multi-agent framework.<n>We find that multi-agent systems organized in a company-style hierarchy generally outperform other organizational structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T15:21:14Z)
• An Agentic Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Scientific Code in PETSc [7.236134946837382]
  petscagent-bench is an agentic framework built on an agents-evaluating-agents paradigm.<n>It orchestrates a 14-evaluator pipeline across five scoring categories: correctness, performance, code quality, algorithmic appropriateness, and library-specific conventions.<n>We demonstrate the framework on a benchmark suite of realistic problems using the PETSc library for HPC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T22:46:10Z)
• Why Agentic-PRs Get Rejected: A Comparative Study of Coding Agents [0.0]
  We show that Pull Requests produced using coding agents (Agentic-PRs) are accepted less often than PRs that are not labeled as agentic (Human-PRs)<n>A large proportion of rejected PRs lack explicit feedback, making their rejection reasons difficult to determine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T05:24:18Z)
• Agentic Rubrics as Contextual Verifiers for SWE Agents [8.469998524915818]
  We show that Agentic rubrics provide an efficient, scalable, and granular verification signal for SWE agents.<n>Results show that Agentic rubrics are consistent with ground-truth tests while also flagging issues that tests do not capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T18:38:23Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Visual Document Understanding and Question Answering: A Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework with Test-Time Scaling [83.78874399606379]
  We propose MACT, a Multi-Agent Collaboration framework with Test-Time scaling.<n>It comprises four distinct small-scale agents, with clearly defined roles and effective collaboration.<n>It shows superior performance with a smaller parameter scale without sacrificing the ability of general and mathematical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T12:52:09Z)
• When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreements [56.29265568399648]
  We argue that disagreements prevent premature consensus and expand the explored solution space.<n>Disagreements on task-critical steps can derail collaboration depending on the topology of solution paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:24:43Z)
• A Unified Debugging Approach via LLM-Based Multi-Agent Synergy [39.11825182386288]
  FixAgent is an end-to-end framework for unified debug through multi-agent synergy. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art repair methods, fixing 1.25$times$ to 2.56$times$ bugs on the repo-level benchmark, Defects4J.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T04:55:35Z)
• CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review [12.163258651539236]
  This work introduces tool, a novel multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) system for code review automation. CodeAgent incorporates a supervisory agent, QA-Checker, to ensure that all the agents' contributions address the initial review question. Results demonstrate CodeAgent's effectiveness, contributing to a new state-of-the-art in code review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T14:43:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.