ワンクリックで
codex-pr-review
Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on PR quality and merge readiness. No code modifications.
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。
メニュー
Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on PR quality and merge readiness. No code modifications.
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
| name | codex-pr-review |
| description | Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on PR quality and merge readiness. No code modifications. |
Peer debate on branch changes before merge -- code quality, PR description, commit hygiene, scope, merge readiness.
Before opening or merging a PR. More thorough than /codex-impl-review for pre-merge scenarios.
RUNNER="{{RUNNER_PATH}}" SKILLS_DIR="{{SKILLS_DIR}}" json_esc() { printf '%s' "$1" | node -e 'let d="";process.stdin.on("data",c=>d+=c);process.stdin.on("end",()=>process.stdout.write(JSON.stringify(d)))'; }
printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" ... -- NEVER echo. JSON via heredoc.init output must start with CODEX_SESSION:. start/resume must return valid JSON. CODEX_NOT_FOUND->tell user install codex.status === "completed" means Codex's turn is done -- NOT that the debate is over. MUST check Loop Decision table.failed->retry once (re-poll 15s). timeout->report partial, suggest lower effort. stalled+recoverable->stop->recovery resume->poll; not recoverable->report partial. Cleanup sequencing: finalize+stop ONLY after recovery resolves.finalize + stop, even on failure/timeout.Read references/protocol.mdBase-branch: git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD, fallback main/master. Validate git rev-parse --verify.
Effort: <10 files=medium, 10-50=high, >50=xhigh. Announce defaults.
Inputs: base branch, PR title/description (optional), branch diff, commit log, file stats, effort.
Pre-flight: diff must exist, commits ahead > 0.
Init: node "$RUNNER" init --skill-name codex-pr-review --working-dir "$PWD"
Render: template=round1. Placeholders: PR_TITLE, PR_DESCRIPTION, BASE_BRANCH, COMMIT_COUNT, COMMIT_LIST, USER_REQUEST, SESSION_CONTEXT.
Start: printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" start "$SESSION_DIR" --effort "$EFFORT"
INFORMATION BARRIER: MUST NOT read Codex output.
Render: template=claude-analysis. Read diff, commits, file stats, PR description. Write FINDING-{N} per references/claude-analysis-template.md. Overall Assessment + Merge Readiness Pre-Assessment. COMPLETE before Step 4.
Poll + report activities.
Parse review.blocks[] + review.overall_assessment (code_quality, pr_description_accuracy, commit_hygiene, scope_appropriateness). Fallback: review.raw_markdown.
Compare Claude FINDING-{N} vs Codex ISSUE-{N}: Agreement, Disagreement, Claude-only, Codex-only, Same Direction Different Severity.
Claude orchestration is authoritative -- Codex VERDICT is advisory.
Render: template=round2+. Placeholders: SESSION_CONTEXT, PR_TITLE, BASE_BRANCH, COMMIT_COUNT, COMMIT_LIST, AGREED_POINTS, DISAGREED_POINTS, NEW_FINDINGS, CONTINUE_OR_CONSENSUS_OR_STALEMATE.
Resume + back to Poll.
| # | Condition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Full/Partial Consensus (no severity >= medium disagreements) | EXIT -> step 5 |
| 2 | convergence.stalemate === true | EXIT -> step 5 (stalemate) |
| 3 | Disagreements severity >= medium remain | CONTINUE -> Cross-Analysis |
Report: Review Summary (Rounds, Verdict, Findings, Agreed/Disagreed), FINDING<->ISSUE Mapping, Overall Assessment table (Code quality/PR description/Commit hygiene/Scope), Merge Readiness Scorecard (must-pass: bug, security; conditional: edge-case if high+). Merge Recommendation: any agreed critical must-pass=REJECT; >=3 agreed high must-pass=REJECT; any agreed high must-pass=REVISE; else MERGE. Stalemate: produce scorecard from agreed findings, present disagreements, defer to user.
finalize + stop. Always run. (-> references/protocol.md for error handling)
SKILL_START, POLL_WAITING, CODEX_RETURNED, THINK_PEER, THINK_AGREE, THINK_DISAGREE, SEND_REBUTTAL, LATE_ROUND, APPROVE_VICTORY, STALEMATE_DRAW, FINAL_SUMMARY
git commit, git add, git rebase, or modify code/history.Review uncommitted code changes or branch diff against the plan/target — verify correctness, catch unacceptable deviations and bugs (logic/security/memory/runtime). No new features or over-engineering beyond the plan. Claude applies valid fixes, rebuts invalid points, iterates until consensus or stalemate.
Review/debate plans before implementation between Claude Code and Codex CLI. Can run in plan mode — debates the plan and edits the plan file to fix accepted issues.
Review entire codebases (50-500+ files) by chunking into modules, reviewing each in separate Codex sessions, then synthesizing cross-cutting findings.
Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on committed code quality. Report + suggest only, no modifications.
Parallel independent review by 4 Claude agents + Codex, followed by merge, debate, and consensus report.
Security-focused code review using OWASP Top 10 and CWE patterns. Detects vulnerabilities through adversarial debate.