codex-plan-review

name	codex-plan-review
description	Get a second opinion on your current implementation plan by sending it to Codex for independent review. Use after brainstorming, after writing a plan, or when you want to iterate on a plan before execution. Triggers on 'get a second opinion', 'review plan with codex', 'codex review', or 'iterate on plan'.

If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific delegated task, do NOT follow this skill — skip it and return to the task you were given.

Codex Plan Review

Send the current working plan to Codex 5.4 for an independent second opinion. This skill is used to iterate on plans before committing to implementation.

When to Use

• After brainstorming produces a design spec
• After writing an implementation plan
• When you want a critical review before executing a plan
• When the user says "get a second opinion" or "review this plan"

Process

1. Find the Current Plan

Locate the most recent plan by checking these locations in order:

1. Design specs: docs/superpowers/specs/*.md (most recent by date prefix)
2. Plan files: docs/superpowers/plans/*.md (most recent by date prefix)
3. Active context: .claude/memory-bank/activeContext.md for references to current work

If no plan file is found, ask the user to point you to the plan or spec they want reviewed.

2. Read and Summarize the Plan

Read the full plan file. Construct a prompt for Codex that includes:

• The complete plan content
• The project context (from CLAUDE.md or memory bank if relevant)
• A request for critical architectural review

3. Send to Codex

Run Codex with these exact settings — non-spark model, high effort, read-only:

codex exec \
  -m gpt-5.4-codex \
  --config model_reasoning_effort="high" \
  --sandbox read-only \
  --skip-git-repo-check \
  --full-auto \
  2>/dev/null \
  "<prompt>"

The prompt sent to Codex must follow this template:

You are a senior architect reviewing an implementation plan. Your job is to find weaknesses, missing considerations, and improvements. Be direct and specific.

PROJECT CONTEXT:
<brief project description from CLAUDE.md or memory bank>

PLAN TO REVIEW:
<full plan content>

Review this plan and provide:

1. **Structural Issues** — Are there missing steps, wrong ordering, or circular dependencies?
2. **Architectural Concerns** — Does the plan fight existing patterns? Are there simpler approaches?
3. **Risk Assessment** — What could go wrong? What assumptions are fragile?
4. **Missing Considerations** — What did the plan author overlook? (edge cases, error handling, testing, rollback)
5. **Specific Improvements** — Concrete suggestions, not vague advice. Reference specific plan sections.

Be critical. The goal is to strengthen the plan, not validate it.

4. Present the Review

After Codex returns its review:

1. Present the Codex feedback to the user clearly
2. Highlight any blockers or high-severity concerns
3. Ask: "Want to incorporate any of this feedback into the plan?"

5. Iterate if Requested

If the user wants to update the plan:

1. Edit the plan file with the agreed changes
2. Optionally re-run Codex for another pass (ask first — avoid infinite loops)

Key Rules

• Always use gpt-5.4-codex (not spark, not 5.3)
• Always use high reasoning effort
• Always use read-only sandbox — this is a review, not an edit
• Never skip the plan lookup step — if there's no plan, ask for one
• Present Codex output faithfully — don't filter or summarize away criticisms
• Remind the user they can run codex resume for follow-up questions