/code-investigate

name: code-investigate
description: "Dual-perspective code investigation. Use when: deep code analysis needing both Claude and Codex perspectives. Not for: quick exploration (use code-explore), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: integrated findings from dual analysis."
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(git:*), Bash(node:*), Write
context: fork

Code Investigate Skill

Trigger

• Keywords: investigate code, how feature works, trace implementation, dual confirmation, deep dive, how code works, what this code does, code research

When NOT to Use

• Just need quick lookup (use Grep/Glob directly)
• Code review (use codex-review)
• System verification (use feature-verify)
• Git history tracking (use git-investigate)

Core Principle

Codex must explore independently. Feeding Claude's conclusions to Codex is prohibited.

┌─────────────────┐     ┌─────────────────┐
│ Claude Explores  │     │ Codex Explores   │
│ Independently    │     │ Independently    │
│   (Phase 1-2)   │     │    (Phase 3)     │
└────────┬────────┘     └────────┬────────┘
         │                       │
         ▼                       ▼
   ┌───────────┐           ┌───────────┐
   │ Claude    │           │ Codex     │
   │ Conclusion│           │ Conclusion│
   └─────┬─────┘           └─────┬─────┘
         │                       │
         └───────────┬───────────┘
                     ▼
              ┌─────────────┐
              │ Consolidated│
              │   Report    │
              │  (Phase 4)  │
              └─────────────┘

Workflow

| Phase | Name | Action | Output | | ----- | --------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------- | | 1 | Claude Explore | Grep/Glob/Read to search code | Related files list | | 2 | Claude Conclude | Analyze logic, form understanding | Initial conclusion (internal)| | 3 | Codex Explore | Invoke Codex exec to explore independently | Codex analysis report | | 4 | Integrate | Compare both perspectives, mark differences | Consolidated report |

Codex Invocation Rules

Dispatch Phase 3 per `@skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md` § Start with the template in `references/prompts.md`. The transport pins the sandbox and the approval policy, and it derives the working directory from `git rev-parse --show-toplevel` — none of the three is chosen here, and this skill no longer restates them.

**Bind every placeholder before writing `prompt.md`.** The template is body-only, so nothing evaluates an expression inside it: `${USER_QUESTION}` and `${PROJECT_PATH}` must carry real values by the time the file is written.

Correct Approach

Code Investigation Task

Question

${USER_QUESTION}

Project Info

• Path: ${PROJECT_PATH}
• Tech Stack: ${TECH_STACK} <!-- one bound value, read from the repository's own manifest and layout. `{FRAMEWORK}`/`{DATABASE}` were never in this file's binding contract and rendered literally, and the hard-coded `TypeScript` was false for any repository that is not one — this project is JavaScript. Omit the line entirely rather than guess. -->

Please **independently explore** the codebase and answer: 1. What files are related? 2. How does the core logic work? 3. What is the data flow? 4. What are the key dependencies?

Please grep/read and explore on your own, then provide your analysis.

Prohibited Approaches

| Pattern | Problem | Example | | ------------------ | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | Feeding conclusion | Claude's findings leak to Codex | `Claude found these files: ${findings}` | | Leading question | Presupposes answer | `I think the problem is in cache, verify` | | Scope restriction | Prevents independent exploration | `Only look at src/service/` |

Output

## Investigation Report
- **Claude findings**: <independent analysis>
- **Codex findings**: <independent analysis>
- **Integrated conclusion**: <merged findings>
- **Confidence**: High / Medium / Low

Verification Checklist

| Check | Standard | | ------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | | Claude independent conclusion | Phase 2 forms conclusion, not output to user | | Codex prompt is clean | Contains only question + project path, no Claude findings | | Report perspectives separated | Claude / Codex conclusions presented separately | | Integration is complete | Marks agreement, differences, possible gaps |

References

| File | Purpose | When to Read | | ------------------------------- | -------------------- | ------------------ | | `references/prompts.md` | Codex prompt templates | Before Phase 3 | | `references/output-template.md` | Report format | During Phase 4 |

Examples

Feature Investigation

Input: Investigate how order processing works
Phase 1: Grep "processOrder" -> Read src/service/order/*.ts
Phase 2: Form understanding: Controller -> Service -> Repository write
Phase 3: Codex explores independently (only given question + path)
Phase 4: Consolidated report -> mark both perspectives

Mechanism Understanding

Input: How does the API caching mechanism work?
Phase 1: Grep "cache" + "portfolio" -> Read related files
Phase 2: Understand Redis TTL + fallback mechanism
Phase 3: Codex investigates independently
Phase 4: Compare differences -> output consolidated report

Problem Diagnosis

Input: Why is token price sometimes null?
Phase 1: Search price-related logic + error handling
Phase 2: Identify possible fallback paths
Phase 3: Codex diagnoses independently
Phase 4: Synthesize both find