comment-checker
Use when Codex needs to understand or respond to automatic comment-checker feedback emitted after an edit-like PostToolUse hook.
Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must
$ npx -y skills add code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode --skill review-work --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/review-workContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must
name: review-work description: "Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must pass for review to pass. MUST USE after completing any significant implementation work. Triggers: 'review work', 'review my work', 'review changes', 'QA my work', 'verify implementation', 'check my work', 'validate changes', 'post-implementation review'."
This skill may include examples copied from the OpenCode or Codex harness. In Claude Code, do not call OpenCode/Codex-only tools such as `task(...)`, `call_omo_agent(...)`, `spawn_agent(...)`, `background_output(...)`, `wait_agent(...)`, `team_*(...)`, `send_message(...)`, `followup_task(...)`, or `close_agent(...)` literally. Translate those examples to Claude Code native tools:
| OpenCode / Codex example | Claude Code tool to use | | --- | --- | | `task(subagent_type="explore", ...)` / `call_omo_agent(...)` / `spawn_agent(agent_type="explorer", ...)` | the `Task` tool (spawn a subagent of the matching type) | | `task(subagent_type="plan"/"oracle", ...)` / `spawn_agent(agent_type="plan"/"reviewer", ...)` | the `Task` tool with the planner/reviewer subagent, or the `Skill` tool | | `task(category="...", ...)` | the `Task` tool (general-purpose subagent) or run the work inline | | `background_output(...)` / `wait_agent(...)` | await the subagent's return value / the system completion notification | | `team_*(...)` / `send_message`/`followup_task`/`close_agent` | run multiple `Task` subagents and synthesize their results |
When translating `load_skills=[...]`, invoke the requested skills with the `Skill` tool or pass their names in the spawned subagent's prompt. If a code block below conflicts with this section, this section wins.
Launch 5 specialized sub-agents in parallel to review completed implementation work from every angle. All 5 must pass for the review to pass. If even ONE fails, the review fails.
The 5 agents cover complementary concerns - together they form a comprehensive review that no single reviewer could match:
| # | Agent | Type | Role | Focus Level | |---|-------|------|------|-------------| | 1 | Goal Verifier | Oracle | Did we build what was asked? | MAIN | | 2 | QA Executor | unspecified-high | Does it actually work? | MAIN | | 3 | Code Reviewer | Oracle | Is the code well-written? | MAIN | | 4 | Security Auditor | Oracle | Is it secure? | SUB | | 5 | Context Miner | unspecified-high | Did we miss any context? | MAIN |
---
Before launching agents, collect these inputs. Extract from conversation history first - the user's original request, constraints discussed, and decisions made are usually already in the thread. Only ask if truly missing.
<required_inputs>
</required_inputs>
**NEVER CHECKOUT A PR BRANCH IN THE MAIN WORKTREE. ALWAYS CREATE A NEW GIT WORKTREE (`git worktree add`) AND WORK THERE. THIS PREVENTS CONTAMINATING THE USER'S WORKING DIRECTORY WITH UNRELATED BRANCH STATE.**
**Auto-collection sequence:**
# 1. Get changed files git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only main...HEAD # 2. Get diff git diff HEAD~1 # or: git diff main...HEAD # 3. Detect run command # Check package.json -> "scripts.dev" or "scripts.start" # Check Makefile -> default target # Check docker-compose.yml -> services
For GOAL, CONSTRAINTS, BACKGROUND - review the full conversation history. The user's original message almost always contains the goal. Constraints often emerge during discussion. If anything critical is ambiguous, ask ONE focused question - not a checklist.
---
Launch ALL 5 in a single turn. Every agent uses `run_in_background=true`. No sequential launches. No waiting between them.
**Oracle agents receive everything in the prompt** (they cannot read files or run commands). Include DIFF + FILE_CONTENTS + all context directly in the prompt text.
**unspecified-high agents are autonomous** - they can read files, run commands, and use tools. Give them goals and pointers, not raw content dumps.
---
This agent answers: "Did we build exactly what was asked, within the rules we were given?"
task(
subagent_type="oracle",
run_in_background=true,
load_skills=[],
description="Verify implementation against original goal and constraints",
prompt="""
<review_type>GOAL & CONSTRAINT VERIFICATION</review_type>
<original_goal>
{GOAL - paste the user's original request and any clarifications}
</original_goal>
<constraints>
{CONSTRAINTS - every rule, requirement, or limitation discussed}
</constraints>
<background>
{BACKGROUND - why this work was needed, broader context}
</background>
<changed_files>
{CHANGED_FILES - list of modThe lazy way to run omo inside Claude Code. A native Claude Code plugin marketplace by Sisyphus Labs. What it is · Install · Components · MCP · Telemetry · omo
Repo: code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode
Use when Codex needs to understand or respond to automatic comment-checker feedback emitted after an edit-like PostToolUse hook.
Use when Codex needs language-server diagnostics, definitions, references, symbols, or rename safety checks in the current workspace.
Use when the user asks about Codex Rules behavior, injected project rules, supported rule file locations, matching, or environment configuration.
Goal-like loop that uses ultrawork mode to decompose work into systematic, evidence-bound steps.
Removes AI-generated code smells from a SINGLE file while preserving functionality. For multiple files, call in PARALLEL per file.
MUST USE for any real runtime debugging across ANY language or binary — crashes, silent failures, wrong responses, stuck processes, memory leaks, async…