| name | cross-review |
| description | Run a cross-review using the opposite CLI reviewer for proposal review and change assessment. Use when the user asks for cross review, 交叉 review, 交叉评审, second-opinion review, Codex-vs-Claude review, or wants the current host agent to ask the other reviewer whether a design or code change is reasonable, what risks it creates, and whether there is a simpler or stronger alternative. |
Cross Code Review
Use this skill when the user wants the current host agent to call the other reviewer:
- if the current host is Codex, call Claude Code CLI
- if the current host is Claude Code, call Codex CLI
This skill is for:
- proposal review
- change assessment
- risk and regression analysis
- alternative-solution evaluation
It is not a generic code-style review skill.
Mandatory References
Before doing anything else, read these files:
- references/change-evaluation.md
- references/integration.md
These files are intentionally compact. They are guardrails, not the main payload.
Workflow
- Determine the review scope:
- user-specified files first
- otherwise inspect the current PR diff first
- otherwise inspect directly available repository diff
- otherwise ask what to review
- Prepare a short host context note that includes:
- what is changing or being proposed
- why this approach was chosen
- constraints, assumptions, and tradeoffs
- where you are uncertain
- Do this automatically from your current understanding of the task; do not ask the user to write it.
- Run the helper script to collect one external assessment from the opposite reviewer:
- Read the generated files:
prompt.md
assessment.md
reviewer.txt
run-summary.txt
- These files are written to a host-private system directory by default, not into the repository.
- The helper now prefers reviewing from the host context note and diff snapshot first. It should only inspect extra repository files when the diff alone is insufficient.
- Reconcile that external assessment with your own direct inspection using
references/integration.md.
- Produce one final answer focused on reasonableness, risks, alternatives, and validation.
Rules
- In
--reviewer auto mode, if the current host is Codex, invoke Claude CLI.
- In
--reviewer auto mode, if the current host is not Codex, invoke Codex CLI.
- Prefer passing a host-written context note over relying on repository contents alone.
- Prefer
--context-stdin when the current agent is generating the note on the fly.
- Prefer
--working when the change is not staged yet.
- Ask the external reviewer to evaluate whether the proposal or change is reasonable.
- Ask the external reviewer to identify hidden risks, missing constraints, and better alternatives.
- The helper has a timeout. If the external reviewer times out or fails, inspect
assessment.md, assessor-run.log, and run-summary.txt, then continue with your own direct assessment.
- Do not turn this into a generic code-style checklist.
- Do not copy the external assessment blindly; inspect the code and adjudicate.
- If the external CLI run fails, disclose it and continue with direct inspection.
- Keep temporary artifacts out of the repository by default.
Prerequisites
At least one external reviewer CLI must be installed and authenticated:
Which one is required depends on the selected reviewer target.