CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-05-05 13:15:24 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: add codex plan review option to /plan-eng-review

Browse Source 
After scope challenge (Step 0), offer to have Codex independently
review the plan with a brutally honest tech reviewer persona.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
2026-03-18 22:01:54 -07:00
parent 00fd28ba83
commit 22b75ff402
2 changed files with 16 additions and 4 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
plan-eng-review/SKILL.md
+8 -2
View File
@@ -222,11 +222,17 @@ A) Yes — let Codex critique the plan independently
B) No — proceed with the Claude review only
```
If the user chooses A: read the plan file and run Codex with the plan review persona:
If the user chooses A: read the plan file content, then pass it into the Codex prompt so it has the actual plan to critique:
```bash
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Review this plan for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems." -s read-only
PLAN_CONTENT=$(cat <plan-file-path>)
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Review this plan for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems.
THE PLAN:
$PLAN_CONTENT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached
```
Replace `<plan-file-path>` with the actual path to the plan file detected earlier.
Present the full output under a `CODEX SAYS (plan review):` header. Note any concerns
that should inform the subsequent engineering review sections.
plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
+8 -2
View File
@@ -93,11 +93,17 @@ A) Yes — let Codex critique the plan independently
B) No — proceed with the Claude review only
```
If the user chooses A: read the plan file and run Codex with the plan review persona:
If the user chooses A: read the plan file content, then pass it into the Codex prompt so it has the actual plan to critique:
```bash
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Review this plan for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems." -s read-only
PLAN_CONTENT=$(cat <plan-file-path>)
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Review this plan for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems.
THE PLAN:
$PLAN_CONTENT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached
```
Replace `<plan-file-path>` with the actual path to the plan file detected earlier.
Present the full output under a `CODEX SAYS (plan review):` header. Note any concerns
that should inform the subsequent engineering review sections.