shield_lock
金大哥
← 返回 Skill 列表
extension
分类: 开发与工程无需 API Key

codex-impl-review

让Codex CLI审查未提交的代码更改或与基准分支的分支差异。Claude应用有效的修复，反驳无效的观点，并迭代直到达成共识或用户批准的僵局。

person作者: jakexiaohubgithub
open_in_new仓库download下载资源包

Codex Implementation Review

Purpose

Verify the implementation matches the plan / original target before commit or merge. Check what is missing, what deviates (and whether the deviation is acceptable or breaks the target), and hunt for real bugs (logic, security, memory, runtime). Fix genuine defects required to make the promised behavior correct and safe, but do NOT silently turn a defect fix into a new product contract, feature, or broader design. No over-engineering.

When to Use

After writing code, before committing. For security-sensitive code, run /codex-security-review alongside.

Prerequisites

  • Working-tree (default): staged or unstaged changes exist.
  • Branch: current branch differs from base branch.

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 APPROVE 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.
  • For detailed error flows -> Read references/protocol.md

Intent And Plan Guard

Use this source-of-truth order whenever instructions, implementation choices, or review suggestions conflict:

  1. The user's latest explicit decision.
  2. The original expected outcome and the approved plan's target, scope, invariants, and acceptance criteria.
  3. Verified repository constraints and applicable repository instructions.
  4. The implementation under review.
  5. Codex findings and other advisory suggestions.

Codex is a reviewer, not the product owner. A genuine in-target bug may be fixed autonomously even when its exact edge case was not named, provided the fix is necessary for the promised behavior and creates no material new contract. A review-driven change requires a USER DECISION when it would materially add or alter user-visible behavior, commands, APIs, configuration, schemas, persistence, migrations, compatibility, supported platforms or use cases, dependencies, services, operations, architecture direction, or long-term product scope.

Workflow

1. Collect Inputs

Scope: working-tree (staged/unstaged changes) or branch (diff vs base). Auto-detect via git status --short and git rev-list @{u}..HEAD. Effort: <10 files=medium, 10-50=high, >50=xhigh. Announce defaults. Working-tree inputs: working dir, original user request plus latest explicit decisions, approved plan/target when available, uncommitted changes. Branch inputs: base branch (validate git rev-parse --verify), clean working tree required, original user request plus latest explicit decisions, approved plan/target when available, branch diff + commit log.

2. Pre-flight

Working-tree: git diff --quiet && git diff --cached --quiet must FAIL. Branch: git diff <base>...HEAD --quiet must FAIL.

3. Init + Render + Start

Init: node "$RUNNER" init --skill-name codex-impl-review --working-dir "$PWD" Render: template=working-tree-round1 or branch-round1. Placeholders: USER_REQUEST, SESSION_CONTEXT, BASE_BRANCH (branch only). Start: printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" start "$SESSION_DIR" --effort "$EFFORT"

4. Poll -> Check Verdict -> Apply/Rebut -> Resume Loop

Poll + report activities. Parse review.blocks[] (id, title, severity, category, location, problem, suggested_fix). Verdict in review.verdict.status.

Check stalemate FIRST, then verdict (-> references/protocol.md § Debate Loop Protocol):

| # | Condition | Action | |---|-----------|--------| | 1 | convergence.stalemate === true | EXIT -> step 5 (stalemate). Do NOT render rebuttal. | | 2 | verdict === "APPROVE" | EXIT -> step 5 | | 3 | verdict === "REVISE" or open issues | CONTINUE -> sub-steps below |

If CONTINUE — all sub-steps are MANDATORY, even if you fix every issue:

4a. Categorize: Classify every review.blocks[] issue under the Intent And Plan Guard:

  • ACCEPT: a real defect or unacceptable deviation within the approved target. Fix the root cause and verify it. Branch mode: commit fixes before resume.
  • DISPUTE: style preference, optional polish, speculative infrastructure, unrelated cleanup, unnecessary abstraction, new feature, or broader redesign without a concrete in-target correctness need. Rebut with plan, request, code, test, or repository evidence.
  • USER DECISION: a potentially valid proposal that materially changes a user-owned outcome or contract. Do not make that change yet.

4b. Resolve USER DECISION items before resume: Finish independent fixes, then ask one focused question stating the issue and evidence, the current target/plan promise, Codex's proposal, whether it is required for correctness or optional scope, viable choices, costs/risks/compatibility implications, and a recommendation when supported. Do not edit code or resume for that item until the user explicitly decides.

If accepted, update the plan/target, affected constraints, tests, acceptance criteria, and SESSION_CONTEXT visibly, then continue implementation and the current review loop. If rejected, preserve the target and rebut Codex with the user's decision. If a defect cannot be fixed without creating a material new contract, it is a USER DECISION, not an autonomous fix.

4c. Build rebuttal strings (one line per issue):

  • FIXED_ITEMS: "ISSUE-1: <title> — fixed in <file>:<line>\nISSUE-3: <title> — fixed in <file>:<line>"
  • DISPUTED_ITEMS: "ISSUE-2: <title> — <concrete reason>" or "None — all issues addressed" if all fixed.

4d. Render + Resume (reuse the updated SESSION_CONTEXT; USER_REQUEST is NOT a rebuttal placeholder):

# Working-tree: template=rebuttal-working-tree
PROMPT=$(node "$RUNNER" render --skill codex-impl-review --template rebuttal-working-tree --skills-dir "$SKILLS_DIR" <<RENDER_EOF
{"SESSION_CONTEXT":$(json_esc "$SESSION_CONTEXT"),"FIXED_ITEMS":$(json_esc "$FIXED_ITEMS"),"DISPUTED_ITEMS":$(json_esc "$DISPUTED_ITEMS")}
RENDER_EOF
)
# Branch: template=rebuttal-branch, add "BASE_BRANCH":$(json_esc "$BASE_BRANCH")
printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" resume "$SESSION_DIR" --effort "$EFFORT"

Back to Poll. Codex MUST re-verify fixes and may find new issues.

5. Completion + Output

APPROVE -> done. Stalemate -> present deadlocked issues, ask user. Report: Rounds, Verdict, Issues Found/Fixed/Disputed, user decisions, fixed defects by severity, residual risks, next steps.

6. Finalize + Cleanup

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

Flavor Text Triggers

SKILL_START, POLL_WAITING, CODEX_RETURNED, APPLY_FIX, SEND_REBUTTAL, LATE_ROUND, APPROVE_VICTORY, STALEMATE_DRAW, FINAL_SUMMARY

Rules

  • If in plan mode, exit plan mode first -- this skill requires code editing.
  • Codex reviews only; it does not edit files. Preserve the approved target and ask before any material behavior or contract change.
  • Every accepted issue -> concrete code diff.
  • Never hide review-originated scope expansion inside a bug fix, test adjustment, helper refactor, dependency change, or reviewer rebuttal.