Codex Commit Review

Purpose

Use this skill to debate commit message quality before or after committing. Claude and Codex are equal analytical peers — Claude orchestrates the debate loop and final synthesis. No commit messages are modified.

Prerequisites

Draft mode: user provides draft commit message text. Staged changes available for alignment check.
Last mode: recent commits exist (git log -n N). Repository has commit history.
codex CLI is installed and authenticated.
codex-review skill pack is installed (npx github:lploc94/codex_skill).

Runner

RUNNER="{{RUNNER_PATH}}"

Workflow

Ask user to choose review effort level: low, medium, high, or xhigh (default: medium). Ask input source: draft (user provides message text) or last (review last N commits, default 1). Set EFFORT and MODE.
Run pre-flight checks (see references/workflow.md §1.5).
Build Codex prompt + Claude analysis prompt from references/prompts.md, following the Placeholder Injection Guide. Start Codex (background) with node "$RUNNER" start.
Claude Independent Analysis (BEFORE reading Codex output): Claude analyzes commit message(s) independently using format from references/claude-analysis-template.md. INFORMATION BARRIER — do NOT read $STATE_DIR/review.md until analysis is complete. See references/workflow.md Step 2.5.
Poll Codex with adaptive intervals (Round 1: 60s/60s/30s/15s..., Round 2+: 30s/15s...). After each poll, report specific activities from poll output. See references/workflow.md for parsing guide. NEVER report generic "Codex is running" — always extract concrete details.
Cross-Analysis: Compare Claude's FINDING-{N} with Codex's ISSUE-{N}. Identify genuine agreements, genuine disagreements, and unique findings from each side. See references/workflow.md Step 4.
Resume debate via --thread-id until consensus, stalemate, or hard cap (5 rounds).
Present final consensus report with agreements, disagreements, and both sides' overall assessments. NEVER propose revised commit messages.
Cleanup: node "$RUNNER" stop "$STATE_DIR".

Effort Level Guide

Level	Depth	Best for	Typical time
`low`	Surface check	Quick sanity check	~1-2 min
`medium`	Standard review	Most day-to-day work	~3-5 min
`high`	Deep analysis	Important features	~5-10 min
`xhigh`	Exhaustive	Critical/security-sensitive	~10-15 min

Required References

Detailed execution: references/workflow.md
Prompt templates: references/prompts.md
Output contract: references/output-format.md
Claude analysis format: references/claude-analysis-template.md

Rules

Safety: NEVER run git commit --amend, git rebase, or any command that modifies commit history. This skill is debate-only.
Both Claude and Codex are equal peers — no reviewer/implementer framing.
Information barrier: Claude MUST complete independent analysis (Step 2.5) before reading Codex output. This prevents anchoring bias.
NEVER propose revised commit messages — only debate quality. The final output is a consensus report, not a fix.
Codex reviews message quality only; it does not review code.
Discover project conventions before reviewing (see references/workflow.md §1.6).
For last mode with N > 1: findings must reference specific commit SHA/subject in Evidence.
If stalemate persists (same unresolved points for 2 consecutive rounds), present both sides and defer to user.

codex-commit-review