mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-11 07:17:12 +02:00
feat: integrate {{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}} into CEO and eng review templates
CEO review: insert after Section 11 + add Outside Voice summary row. Eng review: replace hardcoded Step 0.5 with resolver (adds fallback, logging, dashboard, xhigh reasoning, cross-model tension tracking). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -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
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user