diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
index 6b676a86..05b811e3 100644
--- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
+++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
@@ -622,6 +622,8 @@ Required ASCII diagram: user flow showing screens/states and transitions.
 If this plan has significant UI scope, recommend: "Consider running /plan-design-review for a deep design review of this plan before implementation."
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues or fix is obvious, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
 
+{{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}}
+
 ## Post-Implementation Design Audit (if UI scope detected)
 After implementation, run `/design-review` on the live site to catch visual issues that can only be evaluated with rendered output.
 
@@ -716,6 +718,7 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate?
   | TODOS.md updates     | ___ items proposed                          |
   | Scope proposals      | ___ proposed, ___ accepted (EXP + SEL)      |
   | CEO plan             | written / skipped (HOLD/REDUCTION)           |
+  | Outside voice        | ran (codex/claude) / skipped                 |
   | Lake Score           | X/Y recommendations chose complete option   |
   | Diagrams produced    | ___ (list types)                            |
   | Stale diagrams found | ___                                         |
diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
index f48bdd49..f28ea932 100644
--- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
+++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
@@ -96,28 +96,7 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
 
 If the complexity check triggers (8+ files or 2+ new classes/services), proactively recommend scope reduction via AskUserQuestion — explain what's overbuilt, propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, and ask whether to reduce or proceed as-is. If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Section 1.
 
-### Step 0.5: Codex plan review (optional)
-
-Check if the Codex CLI is available: `which codex 2>/dev/null`
-
-If available, after presenting Step 0 findings, use AskUserQuestion:
-```
-Want an independent Codex (OpenAI) review of this plan before the detailed review?
-A) Yes — let Codex critique the plan independently
-B) No — proceed with the Claude review only
-```
-
-If the user chooses A: tell Codex to read the plan file itself (avoids ARG_MAX limits for large plans):
-```bash
-codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Read the plan file at <plan-file-path> and review it 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 -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached
-```
-
-Replace `<plan-file-path>` with the actual path to the plan file detected earlier. Codex has filesystem access in read-only mode and will read the file itself.
-
-Present the full output under a `CODEX SAYS (plan review):` header. Note any concerns
-that should inform the subsequent engineering review sections.
-
-If Codex is not available, skip silently.
+{{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}}
 
 Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.
 
@@ -252,6 +231,7 @@ At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see a
 - What already exists: written
 - TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
 - Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
+- Outside voice: ran (codex/claude) / skipped
 - Lake Score: X/Y recommendations chose complete option
 
 ## Retrospective learning