| name | review |
| description | Canonical review entrypoint: review a target diff with two independent reviewers — Codex and Claude (Opus) — in parallel, have each vet the other's findings, and synthesize one ranked, deduplicated verdict. Targets a provided branch/range/PR, or the current branch vs origin/main when given no args. Review-only (delegates fixing). Use for 'review this branch', 'review PR 1234', or '/review'. |
| argument-hint | [branch | base..head | PR# | (empty = current branch vs origin/main)] |
| effort | high |
/review — parallel Codex + Opus review, cross-reconciled into one verdict
The single canonical review command. It reviews the target diff with two independent reviewers running in parallel — Codex and Claude (Opus) — has each vet the other's findings, and synthesizes one ranked, deduplicated verdict. This is the review counterpart to /pr's parallel-draft → cross-review → you-own-it pattern.
Review-only. /review never implements. It calls /code-review as its Claude-side primitive; fixing is out of scope unless --fix is passed (which just delegates).
Target resolution
Fetch origin/main fresh first, then resolve the argument:
- no args → the current branch's diff vs the merge-base with
origin/main.
<PR#> → that GitHub PR's diff.<base>..<head> or a bare <branch> → that range (branch vs origin/main).- uncommitted local work → use Codex's
--uncommitted.
Model and cost contract
- Claude runs in
opusplan — Opus for the final cross-reconciliation/verdict (the judgment step 3), Sonnet for the multi-agent /code-review pass and any per-worktree reviewer Agents (session default; no model override). Reserve an explicit model: opus Agent only where a reviewer genuinely needs Opus-level judgment. The user opted into this for cost — don't relitigate it.
- Codex =
gpt-5.6-sol at low effort, never the fast service tier — review is a single bounded pass; sol at low is enough. Pass -c service_tier="default" so it doesn't inherit a fast default from ~/.codex/config.toml. -m/-c/-C are top-level flags and MUST precede the review subcommand (codex review -m … fails with unexpected argument '-m'). (Confirm the slug against ~/.codex/models_cache.json; the lineup changes — today sol frontier / terra balanced / luna fast.)
1. Two independent reviews, in parallel
Launch both concurrently — neither should see the other's output yet:
1b. Paired / multi-repo PRs (backend + web/mobile/desktop companions)
When the target is a set of coordinated PRs across repos (a backend change with frontend companions), review them as ONE job — the seam between them is the highest-value, most-missed surface:
- Set up a clean worktree at each PR head (
git worktree add --detach <wt> origin/<branch>), so a dirty working checkout on another branch is never disturbed. Base every diff on the merge-base with that repo's origin/main.
- Add a dedicated cross-repo contract pass on top of the per-repo reviews: verify the backend PRODUCER actually emits the shape each client CONSUMER now parses (event kinds/discriminators, field names, units), and that no removed backend producer leaves a surviving frontend consumer. Per-repo passes each find their own repo internally consistent and structurally miss this drift.
- Run cheap high-signal checks yourself rather than outsourcing: byte-diff any files the PRs claim are "shared/identical" across repos; explicitly task a reviewer with the specific logic a PR body admits was buggy (e.g. a race the author already fixed once — hunt for the second).
- Structure the verdict with a first-class cross-repo / contract section so seam findings aren't buried under stacked per-repo lists.
2. Cross-reconcile the two reviews
Merge, don't concatenate:
- Deduplicate by
file:line + defect — one entry when both reviewers land the same issue (note it was corroborated).
- Each side vets the other's exclusives. For a Codex-only or Claude-only finding, judge whether it's real and its severity; drop noise with a one-line rationale rather than silently. A finding only one reviewer caught still survives if it's valid — the point of two reviewers is catching what one misses.
3. Synthesize one verdict — you own it
Produce a single ranked list, most severe first. Per finding: file:line, severity, a one-line statement of the defect, a concrete failure scenario (inputs/state → wrong result), a suggested fix, and which reviewer(s) surfaced it. State residual uncertainty plainly. If nothing survives, say so — an empty verdict is a valid result.
Output modes
- default — print the synthesized verdict; make no changes.
--comment — post the reconciled findings as inline comments on the PR target (requires a PR). Reuse /code-review --comment for its share; add the Codex-surfaced ones.--fix — delegate application to /code-review --fix (or hand off to /pr for anything substantial). Off by default; /review stays review-only.
Fallback
- Codex unavailable/unauthenticated → run the Claude
/code-review alone and say the cross-review was skipped, so the verdict is single-reviewer.
- Large diff → resolve into file/area groups and reconcile per group, then merge; note any group you did not cover rather than silently truncating.
