One model built it. Let another challenge it.

What developers can review

Ask for a review of uncommitted changes, a Git diff, selected files, a repository, a proposed implementation plan or a technical decision. The host agent collects relevant local evidence, respects .gitignore and .khimbaignore, excludes common secrets and displays the proposed evidence before submission.

The useful distinction is model independence. Asking the same conversation to reconsider can repeat its original assumptions. Khimba sends the approved material to a different model, chosen by you, with a clear review focus.

The confirmation boundary

1. You name a model, subject and review goal.
2. The agent prepares context locally and shows the exact model, paths, file count, estimated tokens and maximum charge.
3. Nothing is uploaded or charged until you explicitly confirm.
4. The opinion returns with findings, assumptions, recommendations, usage and measured charge.

Changing the model, evidence or focus invalidates the confirmation and requires a new one. A requested model is never silently substituted.

Good prompts

• “Ask DeepSeek to review my uncommitted changes for correctness and missing tests.”
• “What does GLM think of this implementation plan?”
• “Get another model’s view on whether this queue design is safe under retries.”

What a second opinion is not

Another model can still be wrong. Agreement between models is not proof, and disagreement is not automatically a defect. Treat the result as an additional review input: inspect cited evidence, reproduce important claims and keep human responsibility for the decision.