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.