requesting-code-review-codex

Requesting Code Review

Call the codex_review MCP tool to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

Pass a structured prompt with the scope and reviewStyle fields matching the review type needed.

You MUST call codex_review for ALL review work. You cannot review code yourself. External review catches what self-review misses. No MCP call = review not complete.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After each task in subagent-driven development
• After completing major feature
• Before merge to main

Optional but valuable:

• When stuck (fresh perspective)
• Before refactoring (baseline check)
• After fixing complex bug

How to Request

1. Get git SHAs:

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Call codex_review:

Use one of these call shapes:

Structured review (base diff — requires base or commit scope; not available for uncommitted):

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-review",
    "reviewStyle": "structured",
    "scope": { "kind": "base", "base": "origin/main" },
    "prompt": "Review Task 4 from docs/superpowers/plans/2026-04-03-agent-forwarding.md for correctness, regressions, and missing tests.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Advisory review (base diff):

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-advisory",
    "reviewStyle": "advisory",
    "scope": { "kind": "base", "base": "origin/main" },
    "prompt": "Give concise advisory feedback on the diff since origin/main.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Commit review:

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-commit",
    "reviewStyle": "advisory",
    "scope": { "kind": "commit", "commit": "abc1234" },
    "prompt": "Review only commit abc1234 for correctness and risk.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Uncommitted changes — both advisory and structured review styles are supported. Structured review synthesizes git status, staged/unstaged diffs, and untracked file paths into the prompt:

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-uncommitted",
    "reviewStyle": "advisory",
    "scope": { "kind": "uncommitted" },
    "prompt": "Review only the uncommitted worktree changes.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Provide:

• {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
• {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
• {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
• {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

3. Act on feedback:

• Fix Critical issues immediately
• Fix Important issues before proceeding
• Note Minor issues for later
• Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-2-review",
    "reviewStyle": "structured",
    "scope": { "kind": "base", "base": "a7981ec" },
    "prompt": "WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index (verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types).\nPLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md.\nBASE_SHA: a7981ec\nHEAD_SHA: 3df7661\nReview for correctness, regressions, and missing tests.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

[Reviewer returns]:
  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
  Issues:
    Important: Missing progress indicators
    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
  Assessment: Ready to proceed

You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]

Integration with Workflows

Subagent-Driven Development:

• Review after EACH task
• Catch issues before they compound
• Fix before moving to next task

Ad-Hoc Development:

• Review before merge
• Review when stuck

Red Flags

Never:

• Skip review because "it's simple"
• Ignore Critical issues
• Proceed with unfixed Important issues
• Argue with valid technical feedback

If reviewer wrong:

• Push back with technical reasoning
• Show code/tests that prove it works
• Request clarification