Cross-agent review

2 min readReferenceUpdated 2026-05-19

What you'll find here

How one specialist role requests review from another without collapsing distinct decisions into a single worker result.

Reviewers cite; they don't rewrite.

Reviewers can cite evidence, contradictions, receipts, handoffs, worker results, and debate summaries. They do not rewrite worker output in place — revisions are recorded as adjudicated findings with replacement text.

Review flow

1. Create craik.review_request for one or more worker results or debate summaries.
2. The reviewer returns craik.review_result with a decision of approved, changes_requested, blocked, or deferred.
3. An adjudicator records craik.adjudication_outcome with a decision of accepted, rejected, revised, or deferred.
4. Handoffs include adjudication_ids and unresolved_disagreements so the next agent can resume from the durable decision boundary.

Reviewer boundaries

Distinct roles stay explicit.

Policy reviewer and adversarial reviewer results remain separate. Adjudication outcomes preserve policy_review_result_ids and adversarial_review_result_ids so later agents can see which role made each decision.

Deferral

Outcome

Use for

Required state

deferred

durable

Requires at least one unresolved disagreement and must be carried into the next handoff. Use when the adjudicator cannot accept, reject, or revise without more context, human review, or a policy decision.

What's next

ReferenceAgent rolesThe role kinds that request and produce reviews.ReferenceStructured debatesThe debate record adjudication consumes.ReferenceSchema referenceThe review_request / review_result / adjudication_outcome shapes.