Using a Second AI to Review Code Written by the First Can Catch Missed Errors

Software developers using AI coding assistants are advised to seek a second review from a separate AI model or a fresh session to catch errors the first assistant may have overlooked. The first AI's own explanation of its work is not an independent review, as it is already biased by the assumptions and framing it used to write the code. For the second review to be genuinely independent, the reviewer should not see the first AI's reasoning beforehand, but instead receive a focused brief covering the goal, changed files, expected behavior, and completed tests. Using a different AI model can add further value, since it may question assumptions the first model accepted without scrutiny, though it may also share some of the same blind spots. The practice is presented not as a guarantee of correctness, but as a practical habit to improve code quality through independent verification.