Assess the quality and usefulness of multi-agent review comments

Establish whether multi-agent review comments produced for unhealthy code are as correct, equally severe, and equally valuable as comments produced for healthy code by qualitatively grading each comment against the reviewed diff and determining whether it identifies a problem worth fixing.

Background

The study measures the token cost and number of comments generated by a multi-agent code-review pipeline but does not evaluate the substantive quality of those comments. Its exploratory analysis found that agents reviewing unhealthy code take more turns without producing more comments, leaving unresolved whether the comments are equally correct and severe or whether unhealthy code produces fewer but more consequential findings.

The proposed problem is to compare review comments with the underlying diffs and assess both correctness and practical usefulness. Resolving it would allow token expenditure to be interpreted as cost per useful finding rather than merely cost per reported comment, and could reveal whether unhealthy code changes the severity or type of findings even when comment counts remain stable.