Get your code reviewed by a different model
Claude Code (Opus) plans and implements first: a single LLM on its own work introduces confirmation bias. Codex CLI next as an independent QA reviewer with different GPT weights: to catch what Claude would have rationalized. Cross-model workflow for critical features where a second look is worth the double token cost.
Why
An LLM checking its own work always concludes it did great. You need another brain. Claude just shipped 400 lines. You ask: "any bugs?" Reply: "no, the code is solid." The bug's right there, page 3, line 87: an edge case it rationalized because it wrote it. That's confirmation bias applied to a completion model: it completes its own coherence, not reality. The cross-model pattern breaks that. You plan and code with one model (Claude Code / Opus), review with another (Codex CLI / GPT). The two runtimes don't share training biases, don't reason the same way on edge cases. What one…
When
Phase: critical feature, structural refactor, AI-shipped code not finely reviewed. Audience: tech lead, senior dev, solo who wants a safety net. ✅ You know it's your kit when 100% AI code, not deeply read: you accepted 5 Claude proposals in a row, the diff is 800 lines, you didn't read it all Critical feature before prod : payment, auth, GDPR, data migration, a bug is expensive Persistent doubt:…
Tools included
- Claude Code
- Codex Cli Best Practice
- Cross Model Workflow