/route-codex-review

name: route-codex-review
description: Forced adversarial review pre-delivery — hands Claude-generated code, content, or plans to Codex (GPT-5.5) to find bugs, security risks, missing tests, and missed edge cases. Trigger when the user says "review the code you wrote", "check your work", "second opinion", "sanity-check what you wrote", "adversarial review", or before client-bound delivery of substantial Claude output.

route-codex-review

**Family:** routing **Status:** Stable

Purpose

The execution arm of the no-self-review rule. Hands Claude's output to Codex for an independent, adversarial pass — bugs, security risks, missing edge cases/tests, broken invariants, unclear logic. Mandatory for substantial output heading to a client or production, or whenever the user asks to verify Claude's work.

Triggers

• "review the code you wrote" / "review what you just did"
• "check your work" / "look over what you wrote" / "give it a once-over"
• "second opinion" / "sanity-check what you wrote" / "double-check this"
• "adversarial review" / "have codex review" / "is this right"

> Scoped to **Claude's own output**. Bare "audit this" / "audit my site" belongs > to the SEO/QA families, not here (see `references/ENGINE-CONTRACTS.md` §3).

Inputs

• The output to review (diff, files, content, or plan)
• Review focus (bugs / security / correctness / completeness / all)

Steps

1. **Check Codex is available:** `codex --version`. If absent, tell the user it's off until installed and offer a structured manual review *from a different lens* (never a same-model self-review). 2. **Bundle the context** — the diff or the specific files, plus what was tried and the relevant constraints. 3. **Invoke Codex:**

   git diff | codex exec --skip-git-repo-check "Review this diff. Find bugs, security risks, missing tests, edge cases. Be specific and adversarial."

For untracked code, pipe the file(s) instead of `git diff`. For a harder pass: `...codex exec ... "Adversarial review. Challenge the design. Prove what's broken."` 4. **Parse** Codex's findings into severity-tagged items (Critical → nits). 5. **Integrate, don't rubber-stamp.** For each finding decide fix / defer / dismiss (with a reason). Apply the fixes, then re-verify.

Outputs

• A severity-tagged findings list from Codex
• The integrated outcome: what was fixed, deferred, or dismissed (with reasons)

Dependencies

• The `codex` CLI (or the adjacent `openai-codex` tool) (optional — adds an

independent GPT-5.5 adversarial pass; free path: a structured manual review from a different lens, never a same-model self-review).

Notes

Claude reviewing its own substantive output repeats its own blind spots; this skill operationalizes routing that review to a different model before it ships.