shield_lock
JinDaGe
← Back to skills
extension
Category: Development & EngineeringNo API key required

codex-pr-review

Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on PR quality and merge readiness. Both sides review independently, then debate until consensus — no code modifications made.

personAuthor: jakexiaohubgithub
open_in_newRepositorydownloadDownload package

Codex PR Review

Purpose

Use this skill to run peer debate on branch changes before merge — covering code quality, PR description, commit hygiene, scope, and merge readiness. Claude and Codex are equal analytical peers — Claude orchestrates the debate loop and final synthesis. No code is modified.

Prerequisites

  • Current branch differs from base branch (has commits not in base).
  • git diff <base>...HEAD produces output.
  • codex CLI is installed and authenticated.
  • codex-review skill pack is installed (npx github:lploc94/codex_skill).

Runner

RUNNER="{{RUNNER_PATH}}"

Workflow

  1. Ask user to choose review effort level: low, medium, high, or xhigh (default: high). Ask for base branch (discover and validate — see workflow.md §1). Ask for PR title and description (optional). Set EFFORT.
  2. Run pre-flight checks (see references/workflow.md §1.5).
  3. Gather branch diff, commit log, file stats. Build prompts from references/prompts.md, following the Placeholder Injection Guide. Start Codex (background) with node "$RUNNER" start.
  4. Claude Independent Analysis (BEFORE reading Codex output): Claude analyzes the PR independently using format from references/claude-analysis-template.md. INFORMATION BARRIER — do NOT read $STATE_DIR/review.md until analysis is complete. See references/workflow.md Step 2.5.
  5. Poll Codex with adaptive intervals (Round 1: 60s/60s/30s/15s..., Round 2+: 30s/15s...). After each poll, report specific activities from poll output. See references/workflow.md for parsing guide. NEVER report generic "Codex is running" — always extract concrete details.
  6. Cross-Analysis: Compare Claude's FINDING-{N} with Codex's ISSUE-{N}. Identify genuine agreements, genuine disagreements, and unique findings from each side. See references/workflow.md Step 4.
  7. Resume debate via --thread-id until consensus, stalemate, or hard cap (5 rounds).
  8. Final: consensus report + Merge Readiness Scorecard + MERGE / REVISE / REJECT recommendation. NEVER edit code.
  9. Cleanup: node "$RUNNER" stop "$STATE_DIR".

Effort Level Guide

| Level | Depth | Best for | Typical time | |----------|-------------------|---------------------------------|-------------| | low | Surface check | Quick sanity check | ~1-2 min | | medium | Standard review | Most day-to-day work | ~3-5 min | | high | Deep analysis | Important features | ~5-10 min | | xhigh | Exhaustive | Critical/security-sensitive | ~10-15 min |

Required References

  • Detailed execution: references/workflow.md
  • Prompt templates: references/prompts.md
  • Output contract: references/output-format.md
  • Claude analysis format: references/claude-analysis-template.md

Rules

  • Safety: NEVER run git commit, git add, git rebase, or any command that modifies code or history. This skill is debate-only.
  • Both Claude and Codex are equal peers — no reviewer/implementer framing.
  • Information barrier: Claude MUST complete independent analysis (Step 2.5) before reading Codex output. This prevents anchoring bias.
  • NEVER edit code or create commits — only debate quality and assess merge readiness. The final output is a consensus report + merge readiness scorecard, not a fix.
  • Codex reviews only; it does not edit files.
  • If stalemate persists (same unresolved points for 2 consecutive rounds), present both sides, produce Merge Readiness Scorecard from agreed findings, and defer to user.