Conclusion

In this lesson, you extended a single-agent CI review into a multi-agent comparison. You learned how to:

• Configure Claude Code and Codex using the same four architectural pillars established previously,
• Subject an identical iOS pull-request diff to each agent,
• Record observable differences in finding quality, latency and token count.

You then applied a practical three bucket triage policy: confirmed defect, discussion point, and dismissible noise, so that human attention remains focused on the comments that actually improve the change.

The key takeaway is that agentic review is most valuable when treated as a consistent, high-signal first pass rather than an authoritative arbiter. Multiple agents can increase coverage of concurrency, memory-management and SwiftUI concerns, yet they also introduce variance in false-positive rate and token usage. Therefore, the organization needs both the technical ability to invoke alternative providers and the judgment to classify findings and decide whether the incremental signal justifies the additional token usage for each class of change.

The patterns of configuration, measurement and triage developed here remain applicable as new model versions appear. Future modules will build on this foundation when automated review is combined with broader CI quality gates and with deployment automation.