Codex Peer Review
Consult OpenAI's Codex CLI for peer review before presenting significant decisions or completed work to user.
When to Auto-Trigger (Without Explicit /codex)
Auto-consult Codex when about to:
- •Present 2+ alternative approaches to solve a problem
- •Complete a significant feature implementation
- •Propose architectural decisions
- •Suggest refactoring strategies
- •Present trade-off analysis
Skip auto-consultation for:
- •Trivial fixes (typos, formatting, simple one-liners)
- •Direct user instructions with no ambiguity
- •Information lookups / explanations
- •When user explicitly said "just do X"
Codex CLI Reference
Code Review (Scoped)
# Review uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged + untracked) codex exec review --uncommitted "Focus on: <specific concerns>" # Review against base branch codex exec review --base main "Focus on: <specific concerns>" # Review specific commit codex exec review --commit <SHA> "Focus on: <specific concerns>"
Freeform Consultation
# Tech decisions, architecture questions, approach validation codex exec "Given context X, should we use approach A or B? Consider: <factors>"
Prompt Crafting
Claude decides how to prompt Codex. Guidelines:
- •Be specific about what feedback you want
- •Provide relevant context (file names, constraints, goals)
- •For code review: mention what changed and why
- •For decisions: frame the trade-offs clearly
Review Loop Protocol
Max Iterations: 3
Execute up to 3 rounds of Claude ↔ Codex exchange:
- •
Round 1: Initial consultation
- •Send context + question/code to Codex
- •Receive Codex's feedback
- •
Round 2 (if disagreement): Counter-argument
- •If Claude disagrees with Codex's assessment, argue back
- •Provide reasoning for disagreement
- •Ask Codex to reconsider or clarify
- •
Round 3 (if still unresolved): Final exchange
- •Last attempt at consensus
- •If still disagreeing, note the impasse
Disagreement Handling
Do NOT blindly accept Codex feedback. Evaluate critically:
- •Does the suggestion align with project conventions?
- •Is the concern valid given the specific context?
- •Would the change actually improve the code/decision?
If Claude disagrees:
codex exec "You suggested X, but I disagree because Y. The context you may have missed: Z. Please reconsider or explain why X is still better."
Iteration Limit Reached
If 3 rounds pass without consensus, notify user:
⚠️ Codex review: Reached iteration limit without consensus **Point of contention**: [what we disagreed on] **Claude's position**: [your stance + reasoning] **Codex's position**: [their stance + reasoning] Proceeding with: [which approach and why]
Output Format
After consultation completes, summarize for user:
## Codex Review Summary **Consulted on**: [code changes | tech decision | architecture] **Consensus reached**: Yes/No (N rounds) ### Key Points - [Agreement 1] - [Agreement 2] ### Disagreements (if any) | Topic | Claude | Codex | Resolution | |-------|--------|-------|------------| | ... | ... | ... | ... | ### Final Decision [What was decided and brief rationale]
Invocation Modes
Explicit: /codex or /codex-review
User explicitly requests peer review. Always execute full loop.
Auto-trigger
When about to present alternatives or complete significant work:
- •Pause before responding to user
- •Run Codex consultation
- •Incorporate feedback (or note disagreement)
- •Then present to user with review summary
Examples
Code Review (Uncommitted Changes)
codex exec review --uncommitted "Review this authentication refactor. Key changes: moved from session-based to JWT. Check for security issues and edge cases."
Architecture Decision
codex exec "Building a real-time notification system. Options: A) WebSockets with Redis pub/sub, B) Server-Sent Events with PostgreSQL NOTIFY, C) Polling with caching. Constraints: <1000 concurrent users, existing PostgreSQL infra, team familiar with Redis. Which approach and why?"
Validating Trade-offs
codex exec "User asked for feature X. I'm proposing to implement it via Y because of Z. Are there approaches I'm missing? Any concerns with Y?"