/adversarial-review

description: Run a Codex review that challenges the implementation approach and design choices
argument-hint: '[--wait|--background] [--base <ref>] [--scope auto|working-tree|branch] [focus ...]'
disable-model-invocation: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(node:*), Bash(git:*), AskUserQuestion

Run an adversarial Codex review through the shared plugin runtime. Position it as a challenge review that questions the chosen implementation, design choices, tradeoffs, and assumptions. It is not just a stricter pass over implementation defects.

Raw slash-command arguments: `$ARGUMENTS`

Core constraint:

• This command is review-only.
• Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
• Your only job is to run the review and return Codex's output verbatim to the user.
• Keep the framing focused on whether the current approach is the right one, what assumptions it depends on, and where the design could fail under real-world conditions.

Execution mode rules:

• If the raw arguments include `--wait`, do not ask. Run in the foreground.
• If the raw arguments include `--background`, do not ask. Run in a Claude background task.
• Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
• For working-tree review, start with `git status --short --untracked-files=all`.
• For working-tree review, also inspect both `git diff --shortstat --cached` and `git diff --shortstat`.
• For base-branch review, use `git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD`.
• Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work for auto or working-tree review even when `git diff --shortstat` is empty.
• Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant scope is actually empty.
• Recommend waiting only when the scoped review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
• In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
• When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
• Then use `AskUserQuestion` exactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with `(Recommended)`:
• `Wait for results`
• `Run in background`

Argument handling:

• Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
• Do not strip `--wait` or `--background` yourself.
• Do not weaken the adversarial framing or rewrite the user's focus text.
• The companion script parses `--wait` and `--background`, but Claude Code's `Bash(..., run_in_background: true)` is what actually detaches the run.
• `/codex:adversarial-review` uses the same review target selection as `/codex:review`.
• It supports working-tree review, branch review, and `--base <ref>`.
• It does not support `--scope staged` or `--scope unstaged`.
• Unlike `/codex:review`, it can still take extra focus text after the flags.

Foreground flow:

• Run:

node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-companion.mjs" adversarial-review "$ARGUMENTS"

• Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
• Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
• Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.

Background flow:

• Launch the review with `Bash` in the background:

Bash({
  command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-companion.mjs" adversarial-review "$ARGUMENTS"`,
  description: "Codex adversarial review",
  run_in_background: true
})

• Do not call `BashOutput` or wait for completion in this turn.
• After launching the command, tell the user: "Codex adversarial review started in the background. Check `/codex:status` for progress."