skill-packs/codex-review/skills/codex-think-about/SKILL.md
Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on any technical question. Both think independently, challenge each other, converge to consensus or explicit disagreement.
npx skillsauth add lploc94/codex_skill codex-think-aboutInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Peer reasoning, not code review. Claude and Codex are equal analytical peers.
Debate technical decisions or design questions before implementing. Architecture choices, technology comparisons, reasoning through tradeoffs.
RUNNER="{{RUNNER_PATH}}" SKILLS_DIR="{{SKILLS_DIR}}" json_esc() { printf '%s' "$1" | node -e 'let d="";process.stdin.on("data",c=>d+=c);process.stdin.on("end",()=>process.stdout.write(JSON.stringify(d)))'; }
printf '%s' "$PROMPT" | node "$RUNNER" ... -- NEVER echo. JSON via heredoc.init output must start with CODEX_SESSION:. start/resume must return valid JSON. CODEX_NOT_FOUND->tell user install codex.status === "completed" means Codex's turn is done -- NOT that the debate is over. MUST check Loop Decision table.failed->retry once (re-poll 15s). timeout->report partial, suggest lower effort. stalled+recoverable->stop->recovery resume->poll; not recoverable->report partial. Cleanup sequencing: finalize+stop ONLY after recovery resolves.finalize + stop, even on failure/timeout.Read references/protocol.mdFollow references/question-sharpening.md. Confirm rewrite if substantive. Gather effort (default high), scope, relevant files, project context. No premature opinion.
Init: node "$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 "$EFFORT" --sandbox danger-full-access
INFORMATION BARRIER: MUST NOT read Codex output. Codex runs in background.
Render template=claude-analysis, same placeholders. Analyze using own knowledge. MAY use MCP tools (web_search, context7). Analysis must be COMPLETE and FINAL before Step 4.
Poll: node "$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 |
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.
finalize + stop. Always run. (-> references/protocol.md for error handling)
SKILL_START, POLL_WAITING, CODEX_RETURNED, THINK_PEER, THINK_AGREE, THINK_DISAGREE, LATE_ROUND, APPROVE_VICTORY, STALEMATE_DRAW, FINAL_SUMMARY
development
Security-focused code review using OWASP Top 10 and CWE patterns. Detects vulnerabilities through adversarial debate.
development
Peer debate between Claude Code and Codex on PR quality and merge readiness. No code modifications.
tools
Review/debate plans before implementation between Claude Code and Codex CLI. Can run in plan mode — debates the plan and edits the plan file to fix accepted issues.
development
Parallel independent review by 4 Claude agents + Codex, followed by merge, debate, and consensus report.