メニュー
Orchestrate a monitored Codex implementation loop with a worker, code reviewers, actor-local review feedback handling, QA gates, callback transport, heartbeat waiting, and strict fresh-reviewer exit conditions.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Handle cvg-code-review blocker findings in the worker session. Validate feedback, repair implementation-owned issues, or stop for plan and contract gaps.
Review implementation against the plan and contract. Distinguish code bugs from contract gaps. Bounded convergence.
Handle cvg-plan-review blocker findings in the planner session. Validate feedback, revise plan-owned artifacts, or stop for missing decisions.
Review a plan against the actual codebase. Verify slices are sufficient, surfaces are complete, and invariants are correct.
Create a plan for the assigned issue. Reads issue scope and codebase, produces a plan document with slices and invariant matrix when the work is cross-cutting.
Execute the plan slice by slice using TDD. Self-check completeness before declaring the implementation result.
| name | cvg-build-loop |
| description | Orchestrate a monitored Codex implementation loop with a worker, code reviewers, actor-local review feedback handling, QA gates, callback transport, heartbeat waiting, and strict fresh-reviewer exit conditions. |
| argument-hint | [plan path, base commit, or implementation goal] |
Use this skill for implementation work that should be executed by a monitored Codex worker and reviewed by monitored Codex reviewers.
Before doing anything, open and read references/cvg-multi-session-protocol.md, then apply the protocol gates from cvg-multi-session:
Record:
git rev-parse HEAD,Pass unrelated dirty state to the worker and tell it not to overwrite those files.
Create the worker as a real Codex thread with create_thread.
Immediately verify the returned worker thread id with read_thread. If it is not readable, do not continue.
Worker prompt must include:
cvg-work or another user-specified implementation skill,Worker execution rules:
Worker completion callback template:
I am the worker. My session/thread id is <id or thread id not exposed>. Orchestrator thread id: <orchestrator-id>. This implementation round is complete. Base commit: <base>. Head commit: <head>. Key changes: <brief>. Verification: <commands/results>. Known gaps: <none or list>. Please arrange a fresh code reviewer.
Worker blocker callback template:
I am the worker. My session/thread id is <id or thread id not exposed>. Orchestrator thread id: <orchestrator-id>. I found a blocking contract gap. Gap: <id/summary>. Evidence: <files/tests>. Recommendation: <repair/escalation>. Please decide the next step.
After verifying the worker thread, create or update a heartbeat and end the active turn. Do not use sleep or repeated read_thread to wait.
After worker callback is visible in the orchestrator thread, create a fresh reviewer Codex thread. Verify it with read_thread.
Reviewer prompt must include:
cvg-code-review,git diff <base>..HEAD,Reviewer callback template:
I am the fresh code reviewer. My session/thread id is <id or thread id not exposed>. Orchestrator thread id: <orchestrator-id>. This first-pass full code review is complete. Verdict: <ready / not ready>. Findings: <none or numbered blocker list>. Please decide the next step.
Create or update a heartbeat and end the active turn while waiting. Do not manually poll.
Reviewer should report blocking findings only:
Non-blocking quality notes belong in a separate quality review unless the orchestrator requested them here.
After reviewer callback is visible in the orchestrator thread, send the reviewer feedback to the same verified worker thread with send_message_to_thread.
Do not classify findings, choose repair strategy, filter reviewer output, or turn the review into a patch list in the orchestrator.
Feedback prompt must include:
cvg-code-review-feedback,Code Review Feedback Input section,cvg-code-review-feedback intake summary before editing,cvg-code-review-feedback,Worker feedback callback template:
I am the worker. My session/thread id is <id or thread id not exposed>. Orchestrator thread id: <orchestrator-id>. Code review feedback handling is complete. Base commit: <base>. Previous review head: <old>. New head commit: <new>. Code-review-feedback result: <repaired / plan gap / contract gap / systemic design gap / escalation / clarification needed>. Fixed findings: <brief or none>. Verification: <commands/results>. Known gaps: <none or list>. Please arrange the next review step.
Create or update a heartbeat and end the active turn.
If the worker reports a plan or contract gap, escalation, or clarification need, route that callback to the appropriate planner, reviewer, or user decision before requesting re-review.
After worker feedback callback is visible in the orchestrator thread and a reviewable implementation repair exists, send focused re-review to the same verified reviewer thread with send_message_to_thread.
If the worker reported a plan gap, contract gap, systemic design gap, escalation, or clarification need, do not request code re-review yet. Route that blocker to the planner, reviewer, or user decision path first, then return to the worker only after the plan or contract is resolved.
Focused scope:
Create or update a heartbeat and end the active turn.
Same reviewer pass is not enough to exit.
After same reviewer passes, create a new fresh code reviewer thread for a complete first review. Verify it with read_thread.
Final implementation exit condition:
If the new fresh reviewer finds blockers, repeat from Phase 3.
If the plan requires integration, staging, deployment, end-to-end, or smoke checks, run them through a QA or ops worker after code review is clean, unless the plan explicitly orders them earlier.
QA worker prompt must include:
Classify QA failures before routing:
Real QA failures can reopen the build loop.
Optionally run a separate quality reviewer for:
Quality findings are not automatically release blockers. The orchestrator decides whether to run cleanup based on risk and timing.
Report:
read_thread,cvg-code-review-feedback results,