Peer Review — Local LLM Critique Layer
Hypothesis: Local LLMs can catch ≥30% of real errors in cloud output with <50% false positive rate.
Architecture
Cloud Model (Claude) produces analysis
│
▼
┌────────────────────────┐
│ Peer Review Fan-Out │
├────────────────────────┤
│ Drift (Mistral 7B) │──► Critique A
│ Pip (TinyLlama 1.1B) │──► Critique B
│ Lume (Llama 3.1 8B) │──► Critique C
└────────────────────────┘
│
▼
Aggregator (consensus logic)
│
▼
Final: original + flagged issues
Swarm Bot Roles
| Bot | Model | Role | Strengths |
|---|
| Drift 🌊 | Mistral 7B | Methodical analyst | Structured reasoning, catches logical gaps |
| Pip 🐣 | TinyLlama 1.1B | Fast checker | Quick sanity checks, low latency |
| Lume 💡 | Llama 3.1 8B | Deep thinker | Nuanced analysis, catches subtle issues |
Scripts
| Script | Purpose |
|---|
scripts/peer-review.sh | Send single input to all models, collect critiques |
scripts/peer-review-batch.sh | Run peer review across a corpus of samples |
scripts/seed-test-corpus.sh | Generate seeded error corpus for testing |
Usage
# Single file review
bash scripts/peer-review.sh <input_file> [output_dir]
# Batch review
bash scripts/peer-review-batch.sh <corpus_dir> [results_dir]
# Generate test corpus
bash scripts/seed-test-corpus.sh [count] [output_dir]
Scripts live at workspace/scripts/ — not bundled in skill to avoid duplication.
Critique Prompt Template
You are a skeptical reviewer. Analyze the following text for errors.
For each issue found, output JSON:
{"category": "factual|logical|missing|overconfidence|hallucinated_source",
"quote": "...", "issue": "...", "confidence": 0-100}
If no issues found, output: {"issues": []}
TEXT:
---
{cloud_output}
---
Error Categories
| Category | Description | Example |
|---|
| factual | Wrong numbers, dates, names | "Bitcoin launched in 2010" |
| logical | Non-sequiturs, unsupported conclusions | "X is rising, therefore Y will fall" |
| missing | Important context omitted | Ignoring a major counterargument |
| overconfidence | Certainty without justification | "This will definitely happen" on 55% event |
| hallucinated_source | Citing nonexistent sources | "According to a 2024 Reuters report..." |
Discord Workflow
- Post analysis to #the-deep (or #swarm-lab)
- Drift, Pip, and Lume respond with independent critiques
- Celeste synthesizes: deduplicates flags, weights by model confidence
- If consensus (≥2 models agree) → flag is high-confidence
- Final output posted with recommendation:
publish | revise | flag_for_human
Success Criteria
| Outcome | TPR | FPR | Decision |
|---|
| Strong pass | ≥50% | <30% | Ship as default layer |
| Pass | ≥30% | <50% | Ship as opt-in layer |
| Marginal | 20–30% | 50–70% | Iterate on prompts, retest |
| Fail | <20% | >70% | Abandon approach |
Scoring Rules
- Flag = true positive if it identifies a real error (even if explanation is imperfect)
- Flag = false positive if flagged content is actually correct
- Duplicate flags across models count once for TPR but inform consensus metrics
Dependencies
- Ollama running locally with models pulled:
mistral:7b, tinyllama:1.1b, llama3.1:8b
jq and curl installed- Results stored in
experiments/peer-review-results/
Integration
When peer review passes validation:
- Package as Reef API endpoint:
POST /review
- Agents call before publishing any analysis
- Configurable: model selection, consensus threshold, categories
- Log all reviews to
#reef-logs with TPR tracking