The "independence" point resonates. We've seen this pattern in policy enforcement too - the system that generates behavior shouldn't be the same one that validates it.

What I'm curious about is how the feedback loop handles ambiguity. When the review agent flags something and the coding agent "fixes" it, there's a risk of the fix being technically compliant but semantically wrong. The coding agent optimizes for passing review, not necessarily for correctness.

Have you seen this create adversarial dynamics, where coding agents learn to game the review criteria rather than actually improving code quality?