u/FluffyMud3315

I’ve been experimenting with using multiple coding agents together, but I kept running into a boring adoption problem: API keys, CI secrets, and extra per-token billing just to have one agent review another agent’s PR.

So I built an open-source local CLI called coding-review-agent-loop.

It shells out to locally authenticated CLIs like Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, and gh, so it can reuse the auth/subscriptions you already have, instead of requiring separate model API keys.

Example:

$ agent-loop task "Fix the flaky auth test" \
--repo OWNER/REPO \
--coder codex \
--reviewer claude \
--reviewer gemini

The loop is roughly:

1. Coder agent creates or updates a GitHub PR.
2. Reviewer agents review the PR.
3. If reviewers find blocking issues, the coder fixes them.
4. The loop repeats until all reviewers approve.
5. Optional follow-ups can be summarized, filed as issues, or sent back for same-PR fixes.

This is not meant to replace human architectural judgment. The main value is cheap local automation for implementation review: missed tests, regressions, cleanup, obvious bugs, and forcing a second model to critique the first model’s code.

The part I’m most interested in is the “local-first agent workflow” angle: using the CLI tools people already pay for, without setting up another API/billing path.

I’ve also been dogfooding it on this repo itself: most of the recent issues and PRs were created, reviewed, or iterated on through the loop. I’ve used the same workflow on a few other personal projects as well, which is how a lot of the edge cases around follow-ups, dirty worktrees, and Gemini output handling showed up and got addressed.

I’d be interested in feedback from people already using Claude Code / Codex / Gemini CLI:

• Would you trust agent-to-agent PR review for small PRs?
• What review modes would be useful? Security review, architecture review, test review?
• Does reusing local CLI auth matter to you, or do you prefer CI/API-based agents?