What a strong review covers
- Whether the plan’s description of the current system matches repository evidence.
- Missing interfaces, migrations, compatibility requirements and failure handling.
- Whether tests and acceptance criteria can prove the intended outcome.
- Rollout, rollback, observability and operational ownership.
- Simpler alternatives and the conditions under which they would be preferable.
Ask for challenge, not applause
A vague “Does this look good?” invites reassurance. Instead ask the reviewer to find the strongest counterargument, identify irreversible decisions, name assumptions unsupported by evidence and say which missing fact could change its recommendation.
Example request
“Ask GLM to review this implementation plan against the current repository. Focus on interface compatibility, data migration, failure recovery, tests and rollout. Cite evidence, rank material gaps and propose a simpler alternative if one exists.”
Use disagreement productively
If the reviewer disagrees, compare the assumptions behind both approaches. A different preference is not necessarily a defect. If it finds a factual mismatch with the repository, resolve that before implementation. Even when the models agree, retain human ownership and verify consequential claims.
Khimba displays the proposed plan and repository evidence, exact reviewer, estimate and maximum charge before submission. No source is uploaded before confirmation.
Challenge the plan before the code.
Start in Codex, Claude Code or Hermes with guest promotional credit.
Connect Khimba →