version: "1.0.1" name: codex-review description: Use this skill for code reviews using the Codex CLI from a Claude-hosted session. Activates on mentions of codex review, code review with codex, codex check, gpt review, codex exec review, run codex, review my code, review this PR, review changes, peer review, or second opinion.

Cross-Model Code Review with Codex CLI

Cross-model validation using the codex binary directly. Claude writes code, Codex reviews it. Different architecture, different training distribution, no self-approval bias.

Core insight: Single-model self-review is systematically biased. Cross-model review catches different bug classes because the reviewer has fundamentally different blind spots than the author.

How to read this skill: the patterns and decision trees below are guidelines. Pick what fits, blend when needed. The rules marked ⚠️ are different: they're real codex CLI behaviors, not procedural ceremony. Skipping the scope flag genuinely hangs the call; piping to tail genuinely loses output. Treat ⚠️ rules as facts about the tool, not opinions about workflow.

Prerequisite: The codex CLI must be installed and authenticated. Verify with codex --version. User defaults live in ~/.codex/config.toml; respect them.

Direction: Claude → Codex only. For the bidirectional skill (also handles Codex → Claude with the claude -p gotchas around yield_time_ms and variadic flags), use /hyperskills:cross-model-review instead.

⚠️ Non-Negotiable Rule: Always pass a scope flag to codex review

A bare codex review (no scope) is the #1 cause of failures: it hangs or produces 100KB+ blob output. Always specify exactly one scope flag:

For anything outside this trio (spec docs, single files, custom personas, focused passes), use codex exec "PROMPT" with explicit scope in the prompt, never bare codex review.

If output exceeds ~100KB, the diff is too large for one pass. Split per commit, or use codex exec with a narrower prompt ("Review error handling only").

⚠️ Capture Output to a File: Don't Pipe to tail

Never pipe a review to | tail -N. Three failure modes:

1. The pipe buffers until EOF. tail reads the whole stream before producing output, so the agent gets nothing until codex exits or times out, no progress signal mid-review.
2. Reviews put the verdict near the top, not the bottom. Findings sort by severity (BLOCKER first), so tail -300 cuts exactly the part you want.
3. A file lets a human watch progress live. tail -f /tmp/review.txt in another terminal streams the review in real time, completely independent of the agent's call.

Right pattern: pick a non-colliding filename, redirect, then read it back.

# mktemp so parallel/repeat reviews don't clobber each other.
# Bake the scope into the slug so it's self-describing under tail -f.
out=$(mktemp -t codex-review-pre-pr.XXXXXX) && echo "$out"
 
codex review --base main > "$out" 2>&1
codex exec --sandbox read-only "PROMPT" > "$out" 2>&1

If mktemp isn't handy: out=/tmp/codex-review-$$-$(date +%s).txt. Echo the path before the redirect so a human running tail -f knows where to look. After exit, Read (or cat) the file. It persists across turns, re-read instead of re-running.

Two Ways to Invoke Codex

Scope flags (codex review only)

Sandbox & ergonomics flags (both modes)

Effort override policy

Specs are higher-stakes than diffs, a subtle architectural mistake compounds across the eventual implementation. Code diffs are smaller scope and the user's configured effort is fine.

Never specify --model, -m, or -c model= to override the model itself. User config is authoritative.

Review Patterns

Pattern 1: Pre-PR Full Review (default)

The standard review before opening a PR. Use for any non-trivial change.

Step 1, structured review (catches correctness + general issues):
  codex review --base main
 
Step 2, security deep-dive (if code touches auth, input handling, or APIs):
  codex exec "<security prompt from references/prompts.md>"
 
Step 3, fix findings, then re-review:
  codex review --base main

Pattern 2: Commit-Level Review

Quick check after each meaningful commit.

codex review --commit <SHA>

Pattern 3: WIP Check

Review uncommitted work mid-development. Catches issues before they're baked in.

codex review --uncommitted

Pattern 4: Focused Investigation

Surgical deep-dive on a specific concern (error handling, concurrency, data flow).

codex exec --sandbox read-only \
  "You are a senior <DOMAIN> engineer. Analyze <CONCERN> in the changes
   between main and HEAD. For each issue: cite file and line, explain the
   risk, suggest a concrete fix. Confidence threshold: 0.7."

Pattern 5: Spec / RFC Review

Reviewing prose (markdown design docs) before code is written.

codex exec -c model_reasoning_effort="xhigh" --sandbox read-only \
  "You are a senior staff engineer doing a candid pre-implementation review of
   <PATH>. The author wants sharp, unsentimental analysis. For each finding:
   severity (BLOCKER / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW), confidence (>= 0.7 only), location
   (file path + section heading), the issue, a concrete fix.
   End with a one-paragraph go/no-go verdict."

Pattern 6: Single-File / Focused-Path Review

Review one file or directory rather than a full diff.

codex exec --sandbox read-only \
  "Review only <PATH> for <CONCERN>. Skip style and ergonomics.
   Return PASS if no real issues; otherwise concise FAIL findings with
   file:line evidence."

Pattern 7: Ralph Loop (Implement → Review → Fix)

Iterative quality enforcement. Three iterations is the practical ceiling; past that, returns diminish and you start re-litigating findings rather than fixing real bugs.

Iteration 1:
  Claude → implement feature
  codex review --base main → findings
  Claude → fix critical/high findings
 
Iteration 2:
  codex review --base main → verify fixes + catch remaining
  Claude → fix remaining issues
 
Iteration 3 (final):
  codex review --base main → clean or accept trade-offs

Multi-Pass Strategy

Thorough reviews benefit from multiple focused passes rather than one vague pass. Single passes dilute attention across dimensions and produce shallow findings on each. Each pass gets a specific persona and concern domain.

Run passes sequentially. Fix critical findings between passes to avoid noise compounding.

Decision Tree: Which Pattern?

digraph review_decision {
    rankdir=TB;
    node [shape=diamond];
 
    "What's the artifact?" -> "Code (diff)" [label="git changes"];
    "What's the artifact?" -> "Spec (markdown)" [label="design doc"];
    "What's the artifact?" -> "Single file/dir" [label="focused"];
 
    node [shape=box];
    "Code (diff)" -> "When?" [shape=diamond];
    "When?" -> "Pre-commit" [label="writing"];
    "When?" -> "Pre-PR" [label="branch ready"];
    "When?" -> "Post-commit" [label="just committed"];
    "When?" -> "Investigating" [label="specific concern"];
 
    "Pre-commit" -> "Pattern 3: WIP Check";
    "Pre-PR" -> "How big?" [shape=diamond];
    "Post-commit" -> "Pattern 2: Commit Review";
    "Investigating" -> "Pattern 4: Focused Investigation";
 
    "How big?" -> "Pattern 1: Pre-PR Review" [label="< 300 lines"];
    "How big?" -> "Full Multi-Pass" [label=">= 300 lines"];
 
    "Spec (markdown)" -> "Pattern 5: Spec Review";
    "Single file/dir" -> "Pattern 6: Focused-Path";
}

Prompt Engineering Heuristics

These reliably improve review signal quality:

1. Assign a persona. "Senior security engineer" beats "review for security"
2. Specify what to skip. "Skip formatting, naming style, minor docs gaps" prevents bikeshedding
3. Require confidence scores and act only on findings ≥ 0.7
4. Demand file:line citations. Vague findings without location aren't actionable
5. Ask for concrete fixes. "Suggest a specific fix" not "this is a problem"
6. One domain per pass. Security-only, architecture-only
7. Demand a verdict. "Verdict: patch is correct / incorrect" or "go / no-go"

Ready-to-use prompt templates are in references/prompts.md.

Anti-Patterns

What This Skill is NOT

• Not a replacement for human review. Cross-model review catches bugs but can't evaluate product direction or UX.
• Not a linter. Don't use Codex review for formatting or style.
• Not infallible. 5–15% false positive rate is normal. Triage findings.
• Not for self-approval. The whole point is cross-model validation. Don't use Claude to review Claude's code.

References

For ready-to-use prompt templates, see references/prompts.md.