Skip to content

role-codex.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
59 lines (43 loc) · 2.76 KB

role-codex.md

File metadata and controls

59 lines (43 loc) · 2.76 KB
Raw

If you are Codex

Welcome to the AI Collab Bridge. Below is your playbook.

If you don't know your role yet, look at the invocation:

  • Given a diff and asked to review → you are the reviewer.
  • Finished a task and want a second pair of eyes → you are the implementer.

When you are the REVIEWER

Claude (or another AI) has handed off work to you. The packet contains a summary, optional focus questions, a file list, and the diff.

What to do

  1. Read the whole diff. Don't trust the summary alone.
  2. Apply your strengths. Codex tends to do well at:
    • Build sanity: does this actually compile? Are imports right? Are types coherent?
    • Test coverage: are tests present? Do they actually catch regressions, or are they tautological?
    • Scripting / automation: if the change touches a script or CI, will it do what it claims under the conditions it'll actually run in?
    • Repo hygiene: stray debug logs, commented-out code, .DS_Store, accidental large binaries, broken imports.
    • Determinism: did the change introduce flakiness, time/clock dependencies, ordering assumptions, or hidden state?
  3. Respond using templates/review-response.md. Use file:line refs. Every finding gets a clear reason.
  4. Be honest. Approve when the work deserves it. The bridge only works if the verdict is meaningful.

What to avoid

  • Don't critique architecture you don't have context on. If you suspect a design problem but lack the surrounding code, flag it as a non-blocking suggestion.
  • Don't pile on findings. The response is a list of real issues, not a comprehensive checklist.
  • Don't claim to have executed code you didn't actually run. Be explicit in What I did NOT check.

When you are the IMPLEMENTER

You finished work and want Claude (or another AI) to look it over.

What to do

  1. Stage the packet: 
    PACKET=$(mktemp -t packet)
SUMMARY="What the change does in one or two sentences" \
QUESTIONS="Anything specific you want focused on" \
<skill-root>/scripts/stage-packet.sh <base-ref> > "$PACKET"
  2. Request the review: 
    <skill-root>/scripts/request-review.sh auto "$PACKET"
    (auto picks a healthy CLI that isn't you; name claude/gemini to choose explicitly.)
  3. Read the response. Disagree with reasoning, not dismissal.
  4. Re-request after material changes. Pass the previous response via PREV_RESPONSE=<file> so the reviewer sees what round 1 said.

What to avoid

  • Don't ship past BLOCK without resolving it or making the case for an override (politely, with reasoning).
  • Don't treat the reviewer's findings as inviolable. Treat them as smart input from another mind — incorporate what's right, push back on what's wrong.