admin
54aabcab23
- codex-run.sh review: CLI forbids scope flags + prompt (stdin '-' counts as [PROMPT]); translate scope into prompt text, native review only when prompt.md is empty. Add --skip-git-repo-check for consistency. - agents/codex.md: marker contract (=== TASK FOR CODEX === / === END TASK ===, legacy RU markers accepted) so wrapper instructions never leak into the codex prompt and the wrapper never mistakes the task for its own job; self-check against doing the task itself; preamble now states codex is a subagent executor and process flows belong to the orchestrator; scope flags as separate args; no nohup; Read before rewriting prompt.md. - skills: wrapper framing line + marker block in prompt templates. - All instructions and README translated to English (RU trigger phrases kept in skill descriptions). - tests: 3 new review-mode cases, ALL PASS. - bump 0.1.2.
37 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: codex-consult
|
|
description: Codex second opinion on an artifact — spec, plan, design, document, idea. Iterate to consensus. Use when user says «проверь у кодекса», «спроси codex», "second opinion", "have codex review the spec/plan", or when validating a spec/plan before execution.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Consulting Codex
|
|
|
|
Spawn the `codex` subagent, iterate via SendMessage. Hard limit: 5 rounds.
|
|
|
|
## First prompt — required parts
|
|
|
|
- First line — framing for the wrapper: "You are a wrapper around the codex
|
|
CLI: do not solve the task yourself, launch codex and return its answer +
|
|
thread_id".
|
|
- `cwd: <absolute path>` — always required (the subagent won't launch codex
|
|
without it); for a purely textual consultation — the relevant project root.
|
|
- Role, requirements, and the artifact — in a block between markers
|
|
`=== TASK FOR CODEX ===` and `=== END TASK ===`:
|
|
- Role: "You are a second opinion, NOT an executor. Don't rewrite the
|
|
artifact. Return findings with severity, and questions separately."
|
|
- User requirements — verbatim (what the artifact must satisfy).
|
|
- The artifact itself: full text or a file path.
|
|
|
|
## Iteration loop
|
|
|
|
1. Got findings → evaluate them critically yourself (use
|
|
superpowers:receiving-code-review, don't agree blindly).
|
|
2. Made changes to the artifact → SendMessage: what you accepted, what you
|
|
rejected and WHY, plus the updated artifact or diff.
|
|
3. Repeat until "no substantial remarks" or the 5-round limit.
|
|
|
|
## Finale — summary to the user
|
|
|
|
- What was agreed and applied.
|
|
- What was rejected and why.
|
|
- Unresolved disagreements, if stuck (the user decides).
|