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

codex-think-about

Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on any technical question. Both sides think independently, challenge each other, and converge to consensus or explicit disagreement.

personAuthor: jakexiaohubgithub
open_in_newRepositorydownloadDownload package

Codex Think About

Purpose

Peer reasoning, not code review. Claude and Codex are equal analytical peers.

When to Use

Debate technical decisions or design questions before implementing. Architecture choices, technology comparisons, reasoning through tradeoffs.

Prerequisites

  • A question or decision topic from the user.

Runner

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)))'; }

Critical Rules (DO NOT skip)

  • Stdin: printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" ... -- NEVER echo. JSON via heredoc.
  • Validate: 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.
  • Loop: Do NOT exit unless consensus or stalemate. No round cap.
  • Errors: 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.
  • Cleanup: ALWAYS run finalize + stop, even on failure/timeout.
  • Runner manages all session state -- NEVER read/write session files manually.
  • Information barrier: Claude MUST complete independent analysis BEFORE reading Codex output.
  • For detailed error flows -> Read references/protocol.md

Workflow

1. Collect Inputs

Follow references/question-sharpening.md. Confirm rewrite if substantive. Gather effort (default high), scope, relevant files, project context. No premature opinion.

2. Init + Start Codex (Do NOT poll yet)

Init: node "$RUNNER" init --skill-name codex-think-about --working-dir "$PWD" Render template=round1, placeholders: QUESTION, PROJECT_CONTEXT, RELEVANT_FILES, CONSTRAINTS. Start: printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" start "$SESSION_DIR" --effort "$EFFORT" --sandbox danger-full-access

3. Claude Independent Analysis (BEFORE polling)

INFORMATION BARRIER: MUST NOT read Codex output. Codex runs in background. Render template=claude-analysis, same placeholders. Analyze using own knowledge. MAY use MCP tools (web_search, context7). Analysis must be COMPLETE and FINAL before Step 4.

4. Poll -> Cross-Analysis -> Resume Loop

Poll: node "$RUNNER" poll "$SESSION_DIR". Report activities. Parse review.insights, review.considerations, review.recommendations, review.sources. Fallback: review.raw_markdown. Classify: Genuine Agreement, Genuine Disagreement, Claude-only Insight, Codex-only Insight, Same Direction Different Depth. Build response: Agreements, Disagreements (defend with evidence), New Perspectives, Source Cross-validation.

File Modification Guard (after each round): In git repo: BASELINE=$(git status --porcelain --untracked-files=all --ignored) before round; compare after. New lines = Codex modified files. Outside git repo: Snapshot files with find+stat before round; compare after. Classify added/deleted/modified by path+mtime. If changes detected: STOP workflow immediately. List every modified/created/deleted file. Warn user: "Codex violated file modification rules." Do NOT auto-revert. Run cleanup. danger-full-access is for web research ONLY.

Render template=round2+, placeholders: AGREED_POINTS, DISAGREED_POINTS, NEW_PERSPECTIVES, CONTINUE_OR_CONSENSUS_OR_STALEMATE. Resume: printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" resume "$SESSION_DIR" --effort "$EFFORT". Back to Poll.

| # | Condition | Action | |---|-----------|--------| | 1 | Both sides converged, no significant disagreements | EXIT -> step 5 | | 2 | convergence.stalemate === true or same disagreements 2 rounds | EXIT -> step 5 (stalemate) | | 3 | Significant disagreements remain or new perspectives | CONTINUE -> Cross-Analysis |

5. Completion + Output

Consensus -> done. Stalemate -> list deadlocked points, recommend which to favor, ask user. Report: Consensus Points, Remaining Disagreements (Point|Claude|Codex), Recommendations, Consolidated Sources, Open Questions, Confidence Level.

6. Finalize + Cleanup

finalize + stop. Always run. (-> references/protocol.md for error handling)

Flavor Text Triggers

SKILL_START, POLL_WAITING, CODEX_RETURNED, THINK_PEER, THINK_AGREE, THINK_DISAGREE, LATE_ROUND, APPROVE_VICTORY, STALEMATE_DRAW, FINAL_SUMMARY

Rules

  • Keep roles as peers; no reviewer/implementer framing.
  • Codex MUST NOT modify project files. Codex MUST cite sources for web claims.
  • Separate researched facts (with sources) from opinions.