Claude-Codex Review Skill

A skill for second-agent review of plans or code: Claude Code starts rounds, Codex reviews, and they exchange files

5 ★ on the repository
Last commit Sep 26, 2026

Serg2000Mr/dual-review-file-basedAuthor:Serg2000Mr

Install

Works in: Claude Code
Codex
Koda
Coddy

Manual install

mkdir -p .claude/skills/codex-dual-review-file-based
cp claude-code/* .claude/skills/codex-dual-review-file-based/

Run from a repository clone in the project root.

Access and checks

How we review

Extended accessThe tool runs code or makes network calls and only reads external data.

Runs PowerShell or Bash wait scripts
A second agent gets read and write access to the project directory

This is third-party code. Review the repository files before installing.

What it does

Claude Code creates a session in .dual-review, writes a round contract and prints a ready instruction for Codex. Codex claims the round and writes a review with a machine-readable JSON block, while Claude treats each finding as a hypothesis, applies accepted changes and opens the next round. The session ends with final.md marked approved, failed or limit. No MCP server or CLI bridge is needed.

Who it is for. For developers using both Claude Code and Codex who want an independent review by a different model.

Good fit when

You want a plan reviewed before writing code
You want a review of a finished code and test change
You want a second model to evaluate an architecture decision

Not a fit when

You have no access to Codex
The agents cannot share the same project directory

Example request

/codex-dual-review-file-based Review the OAuth auth migration plan docs/auth-plan.md

Limitations

Only Claude Code as initiator and Codex as reviewer is supported. Both agents need access to the same worktree for the whole session. File polling may notice transitions a few seconds late, and sessions default to at most five rounds.

How to disable. Remove .claude/skills/codex-dual-review-file-based. Session files stay in .dual-review and do not affect anything.

FAQ

What if an agent crashes mid-round?

State lives in session files and claim flags, so a restarted agent resumes from the same point.

Which review scopes exist?

plan-only, production-change, architecture-check and lookup-test. The scope is fixed in round one.

Discussion

No questions or reviews yet.

Skills

skill-codex

Needs a VPN

A Claude Code skill that delegates tasks to OpenAI's Codex CLI for code analysis, review and edits

SkillBroad access1.5K

review-loop

Needs a VPN

A Claude Code plugin: Claude does the task, then a stop hook starts an independent Codex review and Claude fixes the findings in the same session

PluginBroad access726

noobnooc agent skills

Agent

Two skills for coding agents: wtf audits a project before shipping, better-codex keeps the agent disciplined while working on code

SkillExtended access1.4K

Finding-Unknowns Skills

14 skills that find the gaps in a task before the code: interviews, plans, assumption tests and proof that a bug fix works

SkillMinimal access358

Codex plugin for Claude Code

Editors’ pick

OpenAI's official plugin: Codex reviews of your changes and task delegation to Codex from inside a Claude Code session

PluginExtended access34.7K

Claude Code Skills and Agents

Claude Code Skills & Agents

A Claude Code plugin bundling skills and sub-agents: deep research, image generation, GitHub work, code review and model switching

PluginBroad access1.7K

Comparison with similar tools

Entries that share the main search query, and how they differ.

Entry	Official	Repository stars	Main difference
Claude-Codex Review Skill (this entry)	no	5
Sno Station	no	980	one local memory for Codex
Arena	no	1,104	a Claude Code skill

README in short

The README describes a file-based review protocol between Claude Code and Codex. Session files are append-only, claim flags allow resuming after crashes, and the review scope stays fixed across rounds. Wait helpers wait-for-review.ps1 and wait-for-review.sh poll for results. Design decisions and protocol limitations are listed separately.

README badge

Original SKILL.md

---
name: codex-dual-review-file-based
description: "File-based dual-review с Codex как reviewer. Использует отдельный каталог сессии в `.dual-review`, структурированные файлы раундов и `final.md` как source of truth. Используй для независимой проверки плана, кода, архитектурного решения или гипотезы, когда Claude Code и Codex работают с общим каталогом проекта."
---

# Codex Dual Review (File-Based)

Текущий чат — initiator. Codex — reviewer.
Source of truth — только файлы в `<SESSION_DIR>/`.

## Пути и рабочие деревья Git

`SESSION_DIR` — абсолютный путь к каталогу сессии. Вычислить его как `<PROJECT_ROOT>/.dual-review/<session_id>`, где `PROJECT_ROOT` — текущий корень проекта Claude Code. Если Claude Code запущен внутри отдельного рабочего дерева Git, именно оно является `PROJECT_ROOT`; не переносить сессию в основной checkout.

Каталог вспомогательных файлов навыка (`SKILL_DIR`) — каталог, содержащий этот `SKILL.md`. Брать `reviewer-prompt.txt` и скрипт ожидания из него, а не строить путь относительно `PROJECT_ROOT`.

## Invocation

```
/codex-dual-review-file-based <описание задачи> [путь/к/плану.md] [max_rounds=5]
```

Если путь к плану передан — прочитать его и использовать как основу `round-start`.
Если `max_rounds` не указан — по умолчанию 5.

## Файловый контракт

- Внутри одной сессии только добавляются новые файлы. Append-only.
- Протокольные файлы не удаляются и не перезаписываются.
- Состояние раунда определяется листингом каталога: `.flg`-файлы — это zero-byte sentinel и часть state machine, не «шум».
- Область ревью (`scope`) фиксируется в первом раунде и не меняется в пределах одной сессии.
- `final.md` означает, что сессия завершена.

## Алгоритм

### Шаг 1. Подготовить контекст раунда

Изучить кодовую базу. Подготовить контекст для ревью:
- что именно нужно проверить;
- какие файлы относятся к задаче;
- какой `scope` нужен.

Канонические значения `scope`:
- `plan-only`
- `production-change`
- `lookup-test`
- `architecture-check`

Report a problem