Multi-agent code review separates implementation from automated review. A reviewer agent can inspect the change, test evidence and project rules without sharing the implementer's immediate objective to declare the task complete.
Independent review can catch omissions and create an iterative correction loop, but it is not a substitute for human accountability. Reviewer models can share blind spots, misread requirements or reward superficial signals.
ELI5
Multi-agent code review uses several AI reviewers, each looking at a software change from a different angle. One might check whether the code works, while others examine security, tests, performance, or accessibility.
For example, one agent may notice that a login form accepts bad input while another finds that keyboard users cannot reach its submit button. Their findings are combined and checked so repeated opinions are not mistaken for proof.
Why use a separate review agent?
Separation introduces another perspective and reduces the chance that the builder's assumptions pass through without challenge.
Does agent review replace human code review?
No. Human reviewers still own consequential design, security and merge decisions, especially when automated reviewers may share model blind spots.
