Requesting code review codex

Skill mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex/skills/requesting-code-review-codex

Request a high-signal Codex-backed review of a diff or task result. Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging. Codex-backed variant.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex --skill requesting-code-review-codex

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

7 stars7 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

5.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Requesting Code Review

Call the codex_review MCP tool to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

Pass a structured prompt with the scope and reviewStyle fields matching the review type needed.

<HARD-GATE> You MUST call codex_review for ALL review work. You cannot review code yourself. External review catches what self-review misses. No MCP call = review not complete. </HARD-GATE>

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

After each task in subagent-driven development
After completing major feature
Before merge to main

Optional but valuable:

When stuck (fresh perspective)
Before refactoring (baseline check)
After fixing complex bug

How to Request

1. Get git SHAs:

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Call codex_review:

Use one of these call shapes:

Structured review (base diff — requires base or commit scope; not available for uncommitted):

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-review",
    "reviewStyle": "structured",
    "scope": { "kind": "base", "base": "origin/main" },
    "prompt": "Review Task 4 from docs/superpowers/plans/2026-04-03-agent-forwarding.md for correctness, regressions, and missing tests.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Advisory review (base diff):

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-advisory",
    "reviewStyle": "advisory",
    "scope": { "kind": "base", "base": "origin/main" },
    "prompt": "Give concise advisory feedback on the diff since origin/main.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Commit review:

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-commit",
    "reviewStyle": "advisory",
    "scope": { "kind": "commit", "commit": "abc1234" },
    "prompt": "Review only commit abc1234 for correctness and risk.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Uncommitted changes — both advisory and structured review styles are supported. Structured review synthesizes git status, staged/unstaged diffs, and untracked file paths into the prompt:

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-17-uncommitted",
    "reviewStyle": "advisory",
    "scope": { "kind": "uncommitted" },
    "prompt": "Review only the uncommitted worktree changes.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

Provide:

{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
{BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
{HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
{DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

3. Act on feedback:

Fix Critical issues immediately
Fix Important issues before proceeding
Note Minor issues for later
Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

{
  "tool": "codex_review",
  "arguments": {
    "taskId": "task-2-review",
    "reviewStyle": "structured",
    "scope": { "kind": "base", "base": "a7981ec" },
    "prompt": "WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index (verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types).\nPLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md.\nBASE_SHA: a7981ec\nHEAD_SHA: 3df7661\nReview for correctness, regressions, and missing tests.",
    "workspaceRoot": "/absolute/path/to/your/repo"
  }
}

[Reviewer returns]:
  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
  Issues:
    Important: Missing progress indicators
    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
  Assessment: Ready to proceed

You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]

Integration with Workflows

Subagent-Driven Development:

Review after EACH task
Catch issues before they compound
Fix before moving to next task

Ad-Hoc Development:

Review before merge
Review when stuck

Red Flags

Never:

Skip review because "it's simple"
Ignore Critical issues
Proceed with unfixed Important issues
Argue with valid technical feedback

If reviewer wrong:

Push back with technical reasoning
Show code/tests that prove it works
Request clarification