From 22b75ff402f2abd95893ab077c2439f72032b55b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Garry Tan Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 22:01:54 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] feat: add codex plan review option to /plan-eng-review 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 --- plan-eng-review/SKILL.md | 10 ++++++++-- plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl | 10 ++++++++-- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md index ac127e9e..8a1b2c05 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md @@ -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=$(cat ) +codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Review this plan for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems. + +THE PLAN: +$PLAN_CONTENT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached ``` +Replace `` 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. diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl index 3e206507..df5e775a 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -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=$(cat ) +codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Review this plan for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems. + +THE PLAN: +$PLAN_CONTENT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached ``` +Replace `` 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.