Codex review

Skill dr-code/tessera/skills/codex-review

Get an independent GPT review via Codex CLI. Use when you want a second opinion on code, plans, or architecture from a different AI model.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add dr-code/tessera --skill codex-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

2.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

/codex-review — Independent GPT Code Review

Usage

/codex-review — reviews staged changes (git diff --staged) /codex-review HEAD~N — reviews last N commits /codex-review [file ...] — reviews specific files

Description

Get an independent GPT code review via Codex CLI. Claude evaluates each GPT finding (agree, correct, or dismiss), adds severity levels, and presents a structured actionable review.

Instructions

Phase 0: Determine Scope

No args: run git diff --staged. If nothing staged, run git diff HEAD~1 for the last commit.
HEAD~N pattern: run git diff HEAD~N
File args: read the specified files directly
If nothing found: ask the user what to review

Phase 1: Get Context (if tessera available)

1. graph_continue (mandatory first call)
2. graph_impact(changed_files=[...list of modified files...])
   → shows which parts of the codebase depend on what's being changed
3. graph_read each modified file
   → gives Claude full current file content before sending anything to GPT
4. graph_action_summary
   → surfaces locked architectural decisions; flag if review would violate any

Phase 2: Send to GPT

For diffs up to ~200 lines, send in one call. For larger diffs, send one file at a time.

codex exec "Independent code review. Context: <TASK_OR_DESCRIPTION>. Code/diff to review: <CODE_OR_DIFF>. Review for: (1) bugs and logic errors, (2) security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, data exposure), (3) performance issues, (4) missing error handling, (5) readability and naming. Format each finding as: [BUG|SECURITY|PERF|STYLE|MISSING]: file:line — issue — suggested fix. End with VERDICT: approved | approved-with-notes | needs_revision"

Phase 3: Claude Evaluates

For each GPT finding, Claude:

Confirms the finding is real (not a false positive)
Assigns severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MED / LOW
Notes if the issue is already handled elsewhere in the codebase
Adds any findings GPT missed

Phase 4: Present Review

Verdict: approved | approved-with-notes | needs_revision

CRITICAL / HIGH — Must Fix: [list with file:line and fix]

MED — Should Fix: [list]

LOW / Style — Consider: [list]

Blast Radius: [if tessera active — what this change affects downstream]

Decision Conflicts: [if any locked decisions conflict with this change — flag before proceeding]

Ask: fix critical/high issues now?

If reviewing staged changes before a commit and tessera MCP is active: run tessera-verify as a final gate to confirm all plan checklist items are satisfied.