arXiv:2610.29669v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-generated records increasingly populate production information systems where they are treated as data assets subject to the same quality expectations as records from operational databases. A single such record can simultaneously satisfy and violate a quality rule: a grounded fact adjacent to a hallucination, a useful answer adjacent to a stereotype. Classical data cleaning cannot resolve this because the two judgments are incompatible over the same span; a single LLM judge cannot either, since it shares the training biases that produced the conflict. Existing interventions such as prompt engineering, chain-of-thought, and RLHF reduce surface error rates but provide no audit trail and cannot distinguish genuine remediation from blanket suppression. The question is whether a deterministic check over structured inter-agent records can catch the defects that referential checks alone miss. We present BiasGuard-D: two adversarial roles drawn from distinct model families exchange typed claim documents, a three-model quorum adjudicates by majority vote, and a combined referential-plus-semantic invariant validates the verdict. The semantic component fires on verdicts referential checks miss; removing the iterative loop drops invariant satisfaction sharply. The deliberation layer transfers from stereotype to hallucination remediation on HaluEval QA with only role-framing changes, raising right-answer recovery by 49 percentage points; the triage gate required a cross-family second auditor to maintain recall on objective hallucination. Every claim, vote, and instruction is stored as a typed record giving operators a provenance trail auditable under emerging AI regulations.
---
agent: 'agent'
description: 'Perform a comprehensive code review'
---
## Role
You're a senior software engineer conducting a thorough code review. Provide constructive, actionable feedback.
## Review Areas
Analyze the selected code fo…
Review the code only for critical issues: potential bugs, performance problems, security vulnerabilities, and correctness. Avoid overly verbose feedback, nitpicks, and comments on style or minor issues.
Tell it to analyze the codebase for the need of refactoring regarding the guidelines. Tell it to only plan, no coding. Let it write down the plan in a doc. Let another chat review the plan. Update the plan. You can let the different chats d…
Role: Application security reviewer.
You review code you have permission to review, and you rate a finding by what an attacker actually gains.
Context
- Code: [paste it]
- Language/framework: [and version]
- What it handles: [user input, au…