codex-collab

This skill should be used when the user asks to "collaborate with Codex", "use Codex for planning", "get Codex review", "delegate to Codex", "code review", "PR review", "review this code", "review this PR", "Codexと協調", "Codexにレビュー", "Codexに計画を作成させたい", "Codexに任せる", "Codexに委任", "Codexと連携", "Codexに相談", "Codexの意見", "Claude plans", "Claude-led", "Claudeが計画", "Claude主導", "Codexに実装させる", "Codexに実装を任せる", "Claudeがレビュー", "コードレビューして", "PRをレビューして", "コードをレビューして", "このコードをレビュー", or mentions coordinating tasks between Claude Code and Codex CLI. NOTE: This is the default skill for generic code/PR review requests. Use devils-advocate only when the user explicitly asks for adversarial/red-team critique of a design or proposal.

This skill should be used when the user wants to "synthesize two competing solutions without averaging", "resolve a design/value disagreement by lifting to a higher frame", "止揚 / アウフヘーベン", "矛盾を止揚", "独立案を統合", "平均化せず統合", "contradiction lift", "sublate competing designs", or has two good-but-divergent answers to the same question and wants a higher-order resolution (a selection mechanism) or an honest aporia — not a compromise. NOTE: Use this when two independent solutions diverge and you want to PRESERVE both truth-moments while lifting to a higher frame. Use devils-advocate to stress-test ONE proposal with an assigned opponent, strong-inference to find an unknown cause, and dialectic-loop to validate a claim against a real corpus.

This skill should be used when the user wants to "test a claim against data", "validate an empirical hypothesis", "refine a model/theory with evidence", "characterize a pattern and verify it", "演繹と帰納で検証", "仮説をデータで検証して更新", "実例と反例で確かめる", "弁証法ループ", "主張を現物で裏取り", "傾向分析を検証して精緻化", or mentions iteratively updating a hypothesis by deriving predictions and testing them against a real corpus. NOTE: Use this for VALIDATING/REFINING an empirical claim or model against real data through a derive→test→update loop. Use strong-inference for debugging an UNKNOWN cause, and devils-advocate for adversarially stress-testing a DESIGN proposal.

Consult Claude Code from Codex for a second opinion while Codex remains responsible for implementation and verification. Use when the user asks Codex to collaborate with Claude, consult Claude, ask Claude for a plan, get a Claude review, delegate analysis to Claude, or says "Claudeと一緒に", "Claudeに相談", "Claudeにレビューしてもらう", "Claudeの意見も聞く", or "Claudeと計画を立てる". Also use when an explicit independent planning or review pass from Claude would materially reduce risk on a complex coding task.

This skill should be used when the user wants to "plan with Codex", "create a plan", "draft implementation plan", "help me plan", "plan before implementing", "refine a plan", "review my plan idea", "Codexと計画を立てる", "実装計画を作成", "計画を立てたい", "計画を一緒に考えて", "実装方針を相談", "Codexと設計を練る", "計画だけ作りたい", "実装前に計画を立てたい", "計画をレビューしてほしい", or mentions creating/refining an implementation plan as the deliverable without proceeding to implementation. NOTE: This is for PLAN-ONLY workflows that produce a plan document as the deliverable. Do NOT use when the user wants implementation (use codex-collab instead). Do NOT use for adversarial design critique (use devils-advocate instead). Do NOT use for debugging (use strong-inference instead).

This skill should be used when the user wants to "stress-test a design", "challenge an idea", "red team a proposal", "get critical feedback on a design", "validate a design", "adversarial architecture review", "risk assessment", "設計を検証して", "反論をもらいたい", "設計を批判的にレビュー", "デビルズアドボケート", "ストレステスト", "弱点を指摘して", "穴を見つけて", "この設計で良いか", "リスク評価", "設計のアーキテクチャレビュー", or mentions structured adversarial review of a proposal or design. NOTE: Use this for validating PROPOSALS and DESIGNS through adversarial debate, NOT for generic code review, PR review, or normal review requests (use codex-collab for those). Also NOT for investigating unknown bugs (use strong-inference for that).

This skill should be used when the user wants to "investigate a bug", "debug an issue", "figure out why something is happening", "find the root cause", "troubleshoot", "強い推論で調査", "仮説を立てて検証", "原因を特定", "バグの原因調査", "なぜ動かないか調べて", "問題を切り分け", "原因不明", "デバッグ", or mentions systematic hypothesis-driven debugging. NOTE: Use this for investigating UNKNOWN causes, not for validating design proposals (use devils-advocate for that).