codex-verify

name	codex-verify
description	Dispatch an independent Codex verification job directly via `codex exec` Bash call, then retrieve and present results
argument-hint	[feature-name or file-path]

Codex Independent Verification

Dispatch an independent Codex review via the local codex CLI — Claude calls it directly from this skill (no terminal hand-off to the user). Codex reviews with no shared Claude context: a genuine second opinion.

The feature or area to verify: $ARGUMENTS (if empty, verify all uncommitted changes).

Codex CLI invocation contract (added 2026-05-25)

Claude has direct access to Codex via the codex binary (C:\Users\mikew\AppData\Roaming\npm\codex.cmd on Windows, codex on POSIX). Both /codex-verify and /review-codex dispatch from Bash — the user does NOT open a separate terminal. See the matching block in .claude/skills/review-codex/SKILL.md for the full contract; this skill follows the same dispatch model with a smaller, less-prescriptive prompt.

Required pre-flight (once per invocation):

codex login status

Expect Logged in using ChatGPT. If not, stop and tell the user to codex login (interactive browser flow).

Dispatch command:

cd "<repo-root>" && codex exec -c project_doc_max_bytes=65536 - < "<prompt-file>" > "<output-file>" 2>&1

• Run with run_in_background: true on the Bash tool.
• Output path: docs/reviews/raw/codex-verify-{feature-or-uncommitted}-{date}.md.
• Codex reads project rules from AGENTS.md, but truncates it at project_doc_max_bytes (default 32768) — AGENTS.md is larger, so the -c project_doc_max_bytes=65536 override is REQUIRED or Codex reviews without TAOM's Critical Rules / ADR rules / commit conventions. The project .codex/config.toml sets this key but Codex never loads it (CODEX_HOME unset → it reads ~/.codex/config.toml), so the flag is the reliable fix. Verify with codex debug prompt-input "hi" — the rendered input must contain "Non-Negotiable ADR Rules".

Step 1: Identify Files to Review

Determine what to verify:

• If $ARGUMENTS is provided, find files for that feature/path using Glob against Main/Features/**/*$ARGUMENTS* or the literal path
• Otherwise, use git diff --name-only and git ls-files --others --exclude-standard to find all changed/new files
• Filter to only .cs and .xslt files (Codex reviews code, not XML data)

Collect the file list.

Step 2: Write Prompt File

Write a focused prompt to docs/reviews/codex-verify-{target}-{date}.prompt.md:

You are reviewing TAOM changes for architectural compliance. AGENTS.md describes your role and the project conventions; honour it.

FILES TO REVIEW: [list from Step 1, one per line]

Focus on (in priority order):
1. Adapter pattern violations (ADR-007) — sealed TaleWorlds types in service classes
2. Thin entry point violations (ADR-002) — entry points over 150 lines with business logic
3. Harmony patch target signatures — verify method signatures exist in installed v1.4.7 DLLs (NOT the decompiled folder, which may have drifted)
4. Test coverage gaps — services without corresponding test files
5. GameModel override correctness — correct base class, base call patterns
6. Cross-file data flow — declared types/fields/methods without consumers (aspirational scaffolding)
7. Lifecycle correctness — Subscribe/Unsubscribe pairs, OnSessionLaunched/OnGameLoaded entity state matrix

Rate each finding: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
Format: [SEVERITY] file.cs:line -- description -- remediation

Output a structured review with sections: top-line verdict, findings grouped by severity, summary table.

For /review-codex (the heavier adversarial flow), the prompt is much richer with Known Suspects + vanilla decompile targets. This skill is the lightweight version — shorter prompt, faster Codex turnaround.

Step 3: Dispatch via Bash

1. codex login status -- abort with user message if not logged in.
2. Dispatch:

   Bash tool call:
     command: cd "<repo-root>" && mkdir -p docs/reviews/raw && codex exec -c project_doc_max_bytes=65536 - < "docs/reviews/codex-verify-{target}-{date}.prompt.md" > "docs/reviews/raw/codex-verify-{target}-{date}.md" 2>&1
     run_in_background: true
     timeout: 600000
   

3. Tell the user: dispatched, prompt at X, output at Y, expected window 5-20 min (this is the lighter prompt — faster than /review-codex).
4. Do not poll. The harness notifies when the background job completes. Continue with other work or wait.

When the background notification arrives, proceed to Step 4 automatically.

Step 4: Retrieve & Validate Output

Read docs/reviews/raw/codex-verify-{target}-{date}.md. Check:

• File is non-empty
• Does not start with Error: / panic: / login required
• Contains structured findings (severity tags, file:line refs)

If validation fails, surface the exact error and suggest manual fallback (codex exec in a terminal with the same args).

Step 5: Display Report

Format the Codex output as:

CODEX VERIFICATION REPORT
==========================
Target: [feature or files]
Model: o4-mini (reasoning: high)

[Codex findings, grouped by severity]

CRITICAL: N
HIGH: N
MEDIUM: N
LOW: N

VERDICT: CLEAN / ISSUES FOUND

Step 6: Root Cause Analysis (MANDATORY — BLOCKING GATE before commit)

If Codex returned ANY confirmed finding (any severity, including LOW), Phase 3e RCA applies before the closing commit. Per .claude/rules/harness-facts.md and feedback_root_cause_mandatory.md — this is not optional, not severity-gated, not "only HIGH." Conflating severity with importance for RCA means we patch LOW symptoms but never extract the systemic lesson — and the same category of bug ships again. The recurring failure: it's already happened repeatedly (Career cooldown review #31, EditorCacheRebuild review #38, scene-scripts CS_Road 2026-05-13 — all the same NaN-gate scope miss).

For EVERY confirmed finding (not just HIGH):

1. Write the finding text + severity.
2. Why missed: what assumption, scope gap, or pattern blindness let it through? Be specific — name the rule that should have caught it, name the file/line that exhibits the pattern.
3. Preventive action: is there a generalizable rule, a feedback-memory entry, or a scope extension to an existing rule? Or is this a one-off?
4. If the pattern has shipped before (grep docs/reviews/rca-*.md and ~/.claude/projects/.../memory/feedback_*.md for it), call that out — repeat-offender bugs need stronger preventive action than first-time bugs.

Write the result to docs/reviews/rca-<feature>-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md following the format of docs/reviews/rca-quickactions-2026-05-06.md:

• Top-line summary
• Findings table with columns: # | Sev | Bug | Category | Why Missed | Preventive Action
• Root-cause pattern section (if 2+ findings share a theme)
• "Why deep-review missed these" section (if deep-review ran before Codex)
• "Feedback memories to codify" section (only if there's a genuine systemic pattern; don't manufacture rules)

This file MUST exist BEFORE the closing commit. The commit message should reference the RCA path.

If the RCA reveals a rule that's already documented but wasn't followed (scope gap or skill body missing prompt), update the rule file or skill body in a follow-up commit. The commit graph should show: review → fixes → RCA → preventive-rule update.

Important

• This is independent verification — Codex has its own understanding via AGENTS.md
• If Codex and Claude disagree on a finding, that disagreement is valuable signal — flag it
• Codex does NOT run builds or tests — it does static analysis and API signature verification
• If the codex CLI is missing or unauthenticated, surface the exact codex login status output and tell the user to run codex login (interactive browser flow). Do not silently fall back to a different verification path.
• DO NOT SKIP STEP 6. The harness-facts rule + the feedback memory both label this as a BLOCKING GATE. Past sessions have shipped without it; the meta-RCA in docs/reviews/rca-scene-scripts-cs-road-2026-05-13.md documents that case and why this step now exists in this skill.