Codex Think About

Purpose

Use this skill for peer reasoning, not code review. Claude and Codex are equal analytical peers; Claude orchestrates the debate loop and final synthesis.

Prerequisites

• A clear question or decision topic from the user.

• codex CLI installed and authenticated.

• codex-review skill pack is installed (npx github:lploc94/codex_skill ).

Runner

RUNNER="{{RUNNER_PATH}}"

Workflow

• Ask user to choose reasoning effort level: low , medium , high , or xhigh (default: high ). Gather factual context only (no premature opinion). Set EFFORT .

• Build round-1 prompt from references/prompts.md .

• Start Codex thread with web access: node "$RUNNER" start --working-dir "$PWD" --effort "$EFFORT" --sandbox danger-full-access .

• Poll with adaptive intervals (Round 1: 90s/60s/30s/15s..., Round 2+: 45s/30s/15s...). After each poll, report specific activities from poll output (e.g. which files Codex is reading, what URLs it is fetching, what topic it is analyzing). See references/workflow.md for parsing guide. NEVER report generic "Codex is running" — always extract concrete details.

• Claude responds with agree/disagree points and new perspectives.

• Resume via --thread-id and loop until consensus, stalemate, or hard cap (5 rounds).

• Present user-facing synthesis with agreements, disagreements, cited sources, and confidence.

Effort Level Guide

Level Depth Best for

low

Surface check Quick sanity check

medium

Standard review Most day-to-day work

high

Deep analysis Important features

xhigh

Exhaustive Critical/security-sensitive

Required References

• Execution loop: references/workflow.md

• Prompt templates: references/prompts.md

• Output contract: references/output-format.md

Rules

• Keep roles as peers; no reviewer/implementer framing.

• Codex must NOT modify, create, or delete ANY project files. danger-full-access sandbox is used SOLELY for web search. Prompt contains strict guardrails.

• Codex MUST cite sources (URL) for factual claims from web.

• Separate researched facts (with sources) from opinions.

• Detect stalemate when arguments repeat with no new evidence.

• End with clear recommendations, source list, and open questions.