[0] https://agentcommunicationprotocol.dev/introduction/welcome
If it detects that agent is dumb or has become dumb, it should terminate it and start again.
I use both daily. I’m the intermediary though.
I'm building an EMR and the other day asked Claude what a decent model would look like for capturing wound orders. Then, I took the output, started a new session and asked the new session to critique that model and the response made me want to pull my hair out. It blasted the model from it's former self and suggested making a ton of updates.
I'm sure more scoped tasks would fair better, but it was pretty frustrating.
I do this with all my important code, before I’ve even looked at it. And not just a critique, I ask “does this solve the problem X and was it built to spec Y”. Then I do my own review once the robots stop arguing.
If your expectations are that the quality of the code matches the confidence level of the robot’s tone, you’re gonna have a bad time.
You can just skip commenting unless you have something actually useful to add. Even if it's criticism of the specific thing, but at the very least make it on topic instead of general digressions that just add noise to the conversation.