version: "1.0.0" name: claude description: Use when the user invokes /claude or asks Codex to get a Claude review, plan critique, second opinion, or multi-agent perspective on code, diffs, implementation plans, architecture, or research in the current repo.

Claude Review

Overview

Use the local Claude Code CLI as an independent reviewer while working in Codex. Claude should critique plans, code, diffs, and approaches; Codex remains responsible for summarizing the result and deciding next steps with the user.

When to Use

• The user explicitly writes /claude.
• The user asks for a Claude review, Claude agent, second opinion, plan evaluation, or external critique.
• The user wants multiple reviewer perspectives before Codex implements.
• Do not use this when the user simply asks Codex to implement or explain something and does not request Claude.

Guardrails

• Default to read-only review: do not let Claude edit files unless the user explicitly asks for a Claude implementation agent.
• Prefer Claude for independent judgment; do not substitute Codex subagents when the request names Claude.
• After presenting Claude findings, stop. Ask which findings to act on before making code or prose changes.
• Run Claude from the repo root. If the repo requires evidence logs, save output with tee logs/YYYY-MM-DD_HH-MM-SS_claude_review.log.
• If claude is unavailable or unauthenticated, report the exact blocker and the smallest setup command, usually claude auth.

Core Pattern

1. Determine the scope: plan text, uncommitted diff, files, branch comparison, or general question.
2. Pick one mode:

• Plan or architecture critique: claude --print with a read-only reviewer agent.
• Code review of a branch or PR: claude ultrareview when appropriate.
• Multiple perspectives: run separate Claude reviewer agents with distinct prompts.

1. Give Claude an XML-tagged prompt with task, scope, output contract, and grounding rules.
2. Save the output, summarize only material findings, and stop for user direction.

Commands

Plan review:

mkdir -p logs
ts=$(date +%Y-%m-%d_%H-%M-%S)
claude --print --model sonnet --effort high --permission-mode plan \
  --disallowedTools "Edit,MultiEdit,Write,NotebookEdit" \
  --agents '{"plan-reviewer":{"description":"Reviews implementation plans without editing files","prompt":"You are a critical implementation-plan reviewer. Inspect repository context as needed. Identify feasibility problems, missing steps, risks, and unsupported assumptions. Do not edit files."}}' \
  --agent plan-reviewer \
  "<task>Evaluate this plan against the repo.</task>
<scope>PLAN_OR_FILES_HERE</scope>
<output_contract>Return findings ordered by severity, evidence, suggested improvements, and open questions.</output_contract>
<grounding_rules>Ground claims in repo context or label them as inferences. Do not invent unsupported issues.</grounding_rules>" \
  2>&1 | tee "logs/${ts}_claude_review.log"

Code review with Claude's hosted multi-agent reviewer:

mkdir -p logs
ts=$(date +%Y-%m-%d_%H-%M-%S)
claude ultrareview main --timeout 30 2>&1 | tee "logs/${ts}_claude_ultrareview.log"

Prompt Templates

Plan evaluation:

<task>
Evaluate this implementation plan for feasibility, completeness, sequencing, and risk.
</task>
<plan>
PLAN_CONTENT_HERE
</plan>
<output_contract>
Return: 1. blockers, 2. missing steps, 3. risky assumptions, 4. recommended revisions, 5. open questions.
</output_contract>
<grounding_rules>
Ground every claim in repository context when possible. Label inferences. Do not suggest fixes unless they follow from evidence.
</grounding_rules>

Code or diff review:

<task>
Review this change for correctness, regressions, missing tests, and integration risks.
</task>
<scope>
FILES_OR_DIFF_SCOPE_HERE
</scope>
<output_contract>
Return findings first, ordered by severity, with file/line evidence where available.
</output_contract>
<verification_loop>
Before finalizing, discard speculative or low-impact issues.
</verification_loop>

Common Mistakes