Request Review

Use this skill when you need code review on the current worktree branch.

Required Path

• Run: ~/.codex/skills/request-review/scripts/request-review "<commit message>"
• Launch it with the command-execution skill/MCP.
• Keep the returned job_id.
• Wait with command_execution_wait(job_id).
• Do not poll stdin.
• Do not kill the review just because it is taking a long time.
• Do not call MCP review tools.
• Do not run alternate legacy review commands.
• Use the shared ~/.codex script path shown here. Do not rewrite it to a worktree-local .codex/... path unless a project-local skill explicitly requires a repo-local wrapper.

Behavior

• Review output is written/read from review.log in the worktree root.
• Review mode and review disable are operator-controlled from the canonical request-review config file.
• Non-working-code changes such as docs, policy text, or comment-only edits do not require request-review.
• In remote mode, GitHub review state is the source of truth for whether the review actually happened.
• In remote mode, once cloud review is in progress, the wrapper waits indefinitely for completion.
• review.log is the local publish-gate artifact, not the remote source of truth.
• The wrapper no longer uses local request-review lock files for review serialization.

Input

• Required: commit message text.
• Optional: --use-existing-commit
• Optional: --existing-commit <sha-or-ref>

Existing Commit Rules

• Use --use-existing-commit when the intended action is to review an already-created commit instead of creating a new one.
• Use --existing-commit <sha-or-ref> when the review target is a specific existing commit or ref instead of HEAD.
• Do not use --use-existing-commit when intended changes are still uncommitted or when the next correct action is to create a fresh commit for review.

Source Of Truth

• Remote GitHub PR state decides whether the review trigger comment landed and whether the remote review actually ran.
• Local review.log decides whether git-publish-worktree will proceed.

Verification Guidance

• If remote mode completes cleanly and review.log is present, use it as the local publish gate.
• If remote mode ran and review.log is empty or absent, do not rerun request-review just because of the missing artifact.
• Inspect GitHub directly.
• Look for a thumbs-up reaction on the trigger comment or for new inline review comments on the target commit.
• If GitHub shows a completed remote review result, treat the review as complete and classify the missing review.log as a local tooling artifact problem.
• If GitHub does not show a completed remote review result yet, treat the review as still in progress.

Guardrails

• Refuses protected integration branches.
• Caller-supplied process env does not override operator-controlled request-review behavior.
• For changes that affect working code or runtime behavior, keep using request-review before publish/merge.