Just ask. The agents already know how. To boost it, have it read the exact docs that OAI/Anthropic provide.

Asking Claude to make prompts is like a Math teacher stuck working at a cafe about Math problem, the just light up.

They are very good at at it.

Generally, you want a different smart agent as they have different strong sides (e.g. call Sol for a review from Opus)

You may use https://github.com/pingdotgg/t3code as a wrapper above claide/codex/pi/... harnesses, or a proxy below (forgot which one, as agent what theo uses for balancing multiple claude subs)

I highly doubt that claim, has it been tested rigorously? I understand mixing different models to save money and time by using cheaper and faster models for certain tasks. But different models just to increase accuracy seems implausible.

Mixing models almost assuredly does increase accuracy in many cases - I do it all day every day and I can only say from experience though not true objective benchmarks.

I use codex/claude code all day every day and built an MCP that allow them to use each other as sub-agents.

I will not allow claude code to touch my code with any design changes without codex auditing it, and visa versa.

I believe this is the case merely because they are different models that will provide varied perspectives, and smart enough to identify issues on each other's work.

I'm not sure if there's research to back this up but I think it's fairly obvious, and also FYI diminishing marginal return - I'm not sure if a '3rd perspective' would be worth it in most cases.

It’s not obvious and I can tell you my experience is the opposite. That is why research is needed, your anecdote does not move the field one inch one way or another.

Something I’ve added is a step where the agent asks itself how confident it is in the solution/implementation - if it isn’t “High” it then has to ask a smarter agent to review.

Not sure it’s the best approach but it has improved results.