| name | code-review |
| description | Use when the user asks to review a pull request or diff with a structured Codex CLI workflow using parallel review passes and filtered actionable findings. |
Codex-Native PR Code Review
Use this workflow to review a pull request or diff with gh when available. Keep findings high-signal, actionable, and grounded in the actual change.
Source of truth
eferences/code-review-command.md
Review Workflow
-
Eligibility check
- Confirm the PR is still open and ready for review.
- Skip review if it is clearly out of scope, already handled, or obviously trivial.
-
Collect local guidance
- Identify the relevant AGENTS.md files for the touched paths.
- Treat those files as code-review guidance when applicable.
-
Summarize the change
- Use one fast subagent to summarize the PR and changed areas.
-
Run parallel review passes
- Launch independent review subagents with different lenses:
- conventions and AGENTS.md compliance
- correctness and bug risk
- history and git blame context
- prior PR or discussion context when relevant
- comments or invariants near the changed code
-
Confidence-check findings
- Re-check each finding with a separate pass before surfacing it.
- Drop weak or speculative issues.
-
Filter for signal
- Ignore trivial lint, formatting, or typecheck issues that CI should catch separately.
- Ignore pre-existing issues unless the current PR makes them worse.
- Keep only the issues that matter to a senior engineer reviewing this change.
-
Comment or report
- If the user asked for a GitHub comment, use gh to post it.
- Otherwise, present the findings directly in the session.
Comment Format
Use this structure for final findings:
`markdown
Code review
Found 2 issues:
-
Brief description of issue
- Why it matters
- Evidence: file path or URL with full commit SHA when linking to GitHub
-
Brief description of issue
- Why it matters
- Evidence: file path or URL with full commit SHA when linking to GitHub
`
If no issues remain after filtering:
`markdown
Code review
No actionable issues found. Checked for correctness, local guidance, and regression risk.
`
Review Rules
- Use gh for GitHub operations when available.
- Prefer concrete evidence over speculation.
- Keep comments brief and free of signatures or emojis.
- Cite paths or links precisely when pointing to code.