codex-review-loop

name	codex-review-loop
description	Pre-PR review loop — self-reflect, then a directed codex CLI (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh) review, then react with attributed commits. Use before opening any substantive PR or when asked to "run the review loop" / "codex review this". Skip for metadata/docs-only diffs.

Codex Review Loop

Substantive PRs go through reflect → codex → react before opening. The two passes catch disjoint defects; attributed reactions make the review auditable on the PR.

Scope gate

Code-bearing diffs only. Skip codex (reflection still applies) for metadata, changelog, or docs-only diffs.

The loop

1. Reflect first — the deliverable is the attack-surface map. Walk the diff with fresh eyes before invoking codex: lifecycle ordering (e.g. SwiftUI onDisappear vs replacement mounts), eviction/teardown pairing, persisted-identifier changes, PR-body claims the diff doesn't back. Fix what you find — but the reflection's chief product is the list of directed questions you hand the reviewer. In the W6 arc, every substantive finding traced back to a directed focus area written from the requestor's own diff read; the generic parts of the prompts produced nearly nothing. The loop's quality ceiling is set at question-writing time. Start from references/attack-patterns.md for the surface type you're touching, then add diff-specific questions.

2. Codex, directed.

   codex exec -c model="gpt-5.6-sol" -c model_reasoning_effort="xhigh" --skip-git-repo-check "<prompt>"
   

   Give it the diff command, named failure modes, and one falsifiable completeness question — directed prompts produce bugs; "review this" produces checklists. Templates and timeout/resume mechanics: references/prompt-patterns.md.

   Codex reviewing codex is fine. Review independence comes from fresh context and an adversarial frame reading the diff as an artifact — not from model identity. W6 evidence: directed codex (xhigh) reviews of codex implementations found disjoint blockers the orchestrator review missed on every task. What is low-signal is the implementer reviewing in its own still-warm session. State the brief's scope fence in the review prompt so findings distinguish defects from known deferrals (reviewers re-litigate scope otherwise — sometimes usefully, but label it).

   Two standing questions regardless of surface: what merged recently that changes this diff's assumptions? (cross-PR interactions are otherwise caught by luck), and for UI diffs, what does this do to the perf-contract surfaces? (reviews read code; only gates measure — a 2x LCP regression sailed past two reviewers and was caught by the perf floor).

3. Adjudicate. Severity labels are advisory, and codex doesn't check whether this diff introduced a finding — run git log <base>..HEAD -- <files> before acting. Pre-existing findings become issues, not scope creep. Declining a finding is valid; say why in the PR.

4. React with attribution. Fix commits open with In response to codex (gpt-5.6-sol, xhigh) ...; the PR body carries a ## Review loop section listing each finding and its disposition. Never fold review reactions silently into other commits — attribution is how the loop's value is measured.

5. Merge. Green CI + no unaddressed human comments + adjudicated codex pass → merge per the delegated authority. Evidence and the Mergeability section still gate per AGENTS.md.