The AI Advisory Board

I don’t trust one AI model with the most complex builds. One model can be brilliant and have its own blind spot. Every point of view has one.

So I run what I call an “AI Advisory Board.”

Right now my strongest coding partners are Claude Code in the terminal, Gemini in my editor, and Codex (only the latest, most capable models). I don’t treat them as rivals. Each company is trying to build the best tool it can, and that pushes all of us forward. For a builder they are like different brushes to an artist, and I want to paint with all of them.

I formulate my idea to the best of my ability. Then one drafts the scope. The other two critique. Then one synthesizes and hardens the final version.

Today I watched a single architecture decision move through all of them. The first version was useful. The critiques made it sharper. The final one was cleaner than anything one model gave me alone.

Most people reach for AI to generate. I believe it is just as important to reach for it to critique. That is what I mean when I say co-intelligence is diagnostic, not only generative. The human job becomes judgment: which critique is real, which tradeoff matters, what ships, what waits.

When the build really matters, do you lean on one model, or do you make them check each other?