# Adversarial Review: Structured Disagreement for Grounded Agentic Code Review

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18167 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.18167/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 14 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [CodeAgent: Enhancing Code Generation with Tool-Integrated Agent Systems for Real-World Repo-level Coding Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07339/) (2024)
- [Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09896/) (2023)
- [MapCoder: Multi-Agent Code Generation for Competitive Problem Solving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.11403/) (2024)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.09095/) (2022)
- [CodeCoR: An LLM-Based Self-Reflective Multi-Agent Framework for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07811/) (2025)
- [CODESIM: Multi-Agent Code Generation and Problem Solving through Simulation-Driven Planning and Debugging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05664/) (2025)
- [MARS: toward more efficient multi-agent collaboration for LLM reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20502/) (2025)
- [SWE-PRBench: Benchmarking AI Code Review Quality Against Pull Request Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.26130/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.