codex-review

codex-review

A thin wrapper over the Codex CLI for a second-AI perspective at the drill's one review point — the consolidated review of the materialized diff, run with the persona panel after the build is green and before a landing is proposed. It is advisory: the verdict is attached to what the user sees, it never gates a decision, blocks a landing, or changes files. The hard blocker for landing stays the green build plus the user's approval.

For deep multi-perspective synthesis (architecture critique, alternative-approach generation), the heavier codex-peer-review addon in mine/ is the tool; this skill is the lean checkpoint integration the drill calls.

Availability

Run only when codex is on PATH. If command -v codex is empty, record the verdict as n/a, say codex was unavailable, and proceed with Claude-only review. Never block on a missing codex.

Review the diff

Run at the drill's single review point: after the build is green, before the landing is proposed, scaled to the size of the change. Run a non-interactive code review against the miner's branch diff:

codex review

or, against an explicit diff:

git_fs diff <main> <gitfs/id>  →  cat <diff> | codex exec "Code review this diff for correctness, security, and reuse/simplification. Concise, line-level where possible."

Map the result to the job's review.codex (notes — suggestions worth folding in, or concerns — a reviewer would not proceed as written) and attach it to the landing proposal next to the gate result and persona synthesis. It rides along; it does not decide. Material notes go back to the miner via SendMessage if the user wants them addressed before landing.

What this skill never does

• It never blocks the pipeline: a codex concerns verdict informs the user, it does not halt a landing.
• It never edits files or merges branches.
• It never runs when codex is absent — it degrades to n/a silently.

Synthesis

Present codex's view transparently next to Claude's: where they agree (higher confidence), where they diverge (a trade-off to surface), and what one caught that the other missed. Do not force consensus; the user is the arbiter.