I built two systems this year that try to solve the same problem from opposite directions.
PlannerCritic puts an LLM critic in a loop with a deterministic gate layer. The gates own the safety contract. The critic is advisory. A planner decomposes a goal into a typed plan. A critic audits every subtask. The plan is revised until approval — or escalated to a human.
AdversarialDebate puts two LLMs in a structured debate. The protocol owns the independence. The models are the evidence. Two reviewers analyze the same artifact without seeing each other's answers, debate their conclusions point by point, and produce either a converged decision — or a structured disagreement report that preserves the dissent.
Both systems are about the same question: how do you know when an LLM's judgment is wrong?
I thought the answer was architecture. Build the right structure, put code where the model can't be trusted, and the system becomes reliable. That was the thesis of both projects. PlannerCritic bet on code. AdversarialDebate bet on structure.
