diverge-codex

name	diverge-codex
description	Delegate creative divergence to Codex (GPT-5.6 "Sol" at xhigh effort). Codex generates 3-5 conceptually distinct approaches before any implementation; Claude presents them for selection, then has Codex implement the chosen one. Cross-model brainstorm-then-select.
argument-hint	[describe the task to delegate to Codex for divergent brainstorming]
allowed-tools	["Read","Bash","AskUserQuestion"]

Diverge → Codex

Run the brainstorm on a second model family, which widens the space of approaches beyond what one model proposes. Claude structures the prompt; Codex (GPT-5.6 "Sol" at xhigh effort) brainstorms; Claude presents the options for selection; Codex implements the chosen approach.

Heritage and scope

Cross-model sibling of diverge, grounded in Creative Preference Optimization (Ismayilzada et al., 2025; background in ../diverge/reference/creative-preference-optimization.md). Same brainstorm-then-select discipline, run on a model whose blind spots differ from Claude's.

Codex invocation mechanism

Plain Claude Code has no native codex:codex-rescue subagent. Every "ask Codex" step below means calling codex exec through the Bash tool (the same mechanism paper-review-lite-codex uses):

• --model gpt-5.6-sol -c model_reasoning_effort=xhigh — pins Codex explicitly rather than relying on codex exec's own implicit default, which can drift upstream.
• < /dev/null — closes stdin. Without it, codex exec hangs on "Reading additional input from stdin…" even when the prompt is passed as a CLI argument. This is the single most common failure mode.
• --skip-git-repo-check so it runs regardless of git state, and --sandbox set per phase: read-only for brainstorming, workspace-write for implementation.
• timeout: 600000 (10 min) on the Bash call as a backstop.

The result returns on stdout — read it directly from the Bash output. Treat a non-zero exit, or empty output, as a Codex failure: report it and offer to fall back to /diverge (Claude-only).

Steps

1. Take the task from $ARGUMENTS; if empty, ask the user what they want to solve. If the goal (not the implementation) is ambiguous, ask one focused question before delegating.

2. Brainstorm via Codex, substituting TASK with the user's request verbatim and adding none of your own implementation preferences:

   codex exec --model gpt-5.6-sol -c model_reasoning_effort=xhigh --sandbox read-only --skip-git-repo-check "$(cat <<'CODEXEOF'
   <brainstorm prompt template below, with TASK substituted>
   CODEXEOF
   )" < /dev/null
   

3. Present the approaches to the user verbatim — do not paraphrase, filter, or reorder them. Ask which to pursue, or whether to synthesize.

4. Implement via Codex only after selection, switching the sandbox to workspace-write and setting -C to the project directory. The Codex plugin's result-handling guidance (stop after presenting findings, apply nothing) applies to code-review handoffs, not here — this step runs only on an explicit user selection, which is the same consent that guidance exists to protect:

   codex exec --model gpt-5.6-sol -c model_reasoning_effort=xhigh --sandbox workspace-write --skip-git-repo-check -C "<project dir>" "$(cat <<'CODEXEOF'
   <implementation prompt template below, with TASK and SELECTED_APPROACH substituted>
   CODEXEOF
   )" < /dev/null
   

Brainstorm prompt template

<task>
Before implementing, generate 3–5 conceptually distinct approaches to:

TASK

Label each approach:
  [Novel]       — different conceptual basis from the conventional solution
  [Surprising]  — violates the obvious assumption; not the first answer
  [Diverse]     — maximally different from the other options in this list
  [Conventional]— the expected path, for contrast

For each approach provide:
- Core mechanism (1 sentence)
- How it works and what makes it distinct (2–3 sentences)
- Main tradeoff (1 sentence)
</task>

<constraints>
At least one approach must be [Surprising].
At least one must be [Novel].
Approaches must differ in underlying mechanism, not just vocabulary.
Prioritize novelty and surprise over immediate quality.
</constraints>

<structured_output_contract>
Numbered list only. No preamble, no implementation code.
Format each: number, label, mechanism line, explanation, tradeoff line.
Present all approaches and stop.
</structured_output_contract>

Implementation prompt template

<task>
Implement the following approach to: TASK

Selected approach: SELECTED_APPROACH

Implement it fully. Edit files in place where applicable.
</task>