| name | codex-review |
| description | Send plans, code, or approaches to OpenAI Codex CLI for independent review. |
| argument-hint | [context] |
| user-invocable | true |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| context | fork |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash |
Codex Review
When invoked, send the relevant context — plans, approaches, code, or any combination — to codex CLI for an independent review.
Files and instructions: $ARGUMENTS
What to review
This skill covers both code and plans/approaches:
- Plans/Approaches: Architecture decisions, implementation strategies, proposed approaches before starting work
- Code: Code you've written, modified, or are considering changing — diffs, file contents, implementation details, proposed changes
- Both together: A plan alongside the code that implements it
Adapt what you send based on what the user asks Codex to review.
How to interpret arguments
The arguments are free-form and flexible. They may contain:
- Natural language describing what to review: "review my current plan", "review the last commit"
- File references alongside instructions:
@auth.ts review this file for security issues
- Scope instructions: "review the approach and the implementation together"
Parse the arguments to determine what context to gather and send to Codex.
Examples
/codex-review review my current plan — review the plan from the current conversation
/codex-review review the code I just wrote — review recent code changes
/codex-review review the approach and the implementation together — review both plan and code
/codex-review @auth.ts review this file for security issues — review a specific file with focus
/codex-review review the last commit — review the most recent commit diff
How to proceed
-
Gather context: Collect the relevant material to send for review based on what the user asked. Match the scope of what you send to the scope of the ask — if the user points at a single function, send that function and its immediate dependencies, not the entire file history or conversation. A quick opinion needs adequate context; a full architecture review needs more.
- For a targeted question (specific file, function, or snippet): Send only the relevant code and enough surrounding context for Codex to understand it (e.g. types, imports, direct callers). Skip git history, conversation recaps, and unrelated files
- For plan/approach review: Include the plan text or approach description, plus the key files it affects (entry points, schemas, interfaces) — not the entire codebase it touches
- For code review of recent changes: Include the diff (
git diff) and a brief description of intent — not every file in the repo
- For broad reviews ("review the architecture", "review everything I've done"): Include more context, but summarise where possible rather than dumping raw content
-
Build the prompt: Construct a clear prompt for Codex that includes:
- The context of the project and what the user is trying to achieve
- The code, plan, approach, or combination thereof
- A request to review, identify potential issues, suggest improvements, and flag anything missing
-
Run codex: Write the full prompt to a temporary file, then pipe it to the helper script:
echo "Review the following <code/plan/approach> for a software engineering task and provide feedback.
## Project Context
<project context>
## What to Review
<code, plan, approach, or combination>
## Please provide:
1. Overall assessment
2. Potential issues or risks
3. Suggested improvements
4. Anything missing or overlooked
## Output rules
- Be concise
- Do not echo back the entire code or plan you were given
- Short code snippets are fine to illustrate a point, but never include entire files
- If you explore the codebase, summarise what you found — do not paste what you read" | skills/codex-review/run-codex.sh
Important:
- Always use
echo "..." | skills/codex-review/run-codex.sh — never use heredocs (indentation causes hangs)
- The script checks that
codex is installed and exits with a clear error if not
- Set a reasonable timeout (use Bash timeout of 300000ms)
-
Report back: Present the Codex feedback to the user clearly:
- Codex's overall assessment
- Any concerns or suggestions raised
- Your own response to the feedback (agree, disagree, or need to discuss)