Recommend a model and a scoped handoff for a task in Claude Code or Codex. Use when choosing who should handle a task, seeking a second opinion, getting unstuck, or delegating focused work; execute one handoff when requested.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Harden a plan with independent Claude/Codex review, then optionally build and cross-inspect it. Start in either Claude Code or Codex: the host plans and the other provider reviews. Use for claudex this plan, claudex-loop, or the legacy crucible trigger; not for trivial edits.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
The current conversation owns requirements, planning and coordination. The other provider reviews the plan. Either provider can build; the provider that did not build inspects the final code in a fresh session.
Identify the actual host from your runtime, not PATH, installed skills, model-name guesses, or the repository. Both CLIs may be installed. Use host=claude in Claude Code and host=codex in Codex. If the runtime identity is unavailable, ask which host the user is using once.
| Host | Requirements and plan | Plan reviewer | Default builder | Final inspector |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | Current Claude session | Codex | Claude | Fresh Codex session |
| Codex | Current Codex session | Claude | Codex | Fresh Claude session |
Honor builder=claude|codex. The inspector is always the other provider. The host remains coordinator even when the other provider builds. To swap the planner, start the conversation in the other host; do not pretend a CLI reviewer is the user's planning conversation.
Model selection is independent of provider roles. Preserve the host's selected model. Review/build CLI calls inherit their own configuration unless reviewer_model, builder_model, or inspector_model is supplied; map these to the runner's --model for that invocation. Apply an explicit *_effort similarly. Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra are suitable explicit choices, not mandatory pins. A model in the host UI does not prove which model a separate CLI will use. Report requested and observed model information separately; report an unresolved CLI default honestly. Never silently fall back to another model/provider on a failure.
Read the runtime reference before launching a CLI. Resolve its runner relative to this installed SKILL.md, never relative to the project being reviewed. Use absolute paths when launching it.
If the user supplies codex_cli or claude_cli, map the selected provider's executable path to --cli. A host app can have a newer working binary than the CLI on PATH; verify the path and version without silently changing global installation or configuration.
| Argument | Default | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
PLAN_FILE / plan | PLAN.md | Plan path used throughout, including the build handoff |
LOG_FILE / log | PLAN-REVIEW-LOG.md | Append-only transcript |
rounds / MAX_ROUNDS | 5 | Maximum completed plan-review rounds |
builder | host | Provider implementing the plan |
research | proportionate to task | none, web, or explicit opt-in deep |
mode | full | full includes recon/interview; review starts from an existing plan |
inspect | on | off only when the user explicitly opts out; record it |
MAX_FIX_ROUNDS | 2 | Bounded build-fix attempts before reporting or taking over |
MAX_INSPECTION_ROUNDS | 2 | Initial inspection plus one after fixes |
Echo roles, paths, round limits, requested models and inspection opt-out before starting. Preserve existing authorization: a request to plan does not authorize building; a request to plan and implement does. Do authorized preparation before seeking any remaining sign-off.
For existing projects, inspect relevant code, dependencies, callers and writers of shared state. Read existing CONTEXT.md / CONTEXT-MAP.md and relevant ADRs. For greenfield work, research prior art, a reasonable stack and concrete failure modes when useful. Respect an explicit research depth. Deep multi-agent research requires explicit opt-in and an available tool; otherwise use supported targeted research, and report the limitation. Do not require a proprietary Workflow tool or hard-code a research-agent model.
Discover relevant skills through the host's available catalog and the other provider's documented skill locations when accessible. Record only relevant proposed dependencies. Do not assume host MCP, browser, credentials or skills transfer to the other CLI. Verify required build capabilities before relying on them.
Present one assumptions ledger with source paths or research links. Ask for corrections to material uncertainties as a batch. Resolve routine reversible choices yourself when the user has authorized the work; silence is not approval of an action requiring approval.
Maintain a short visible decision map. Ask only about unresolved decisions that change the outcome. For each consequential question, give the recommendation, why it matters, and the cost of guessing wrong. Batch independent questions; ask dependent ones sequentially. If the code can answer, inspect it instead. Offer “accept all remaining recommendations” when a long decision list would slow the user down.
Respect existing glossary definitions; resolve ambiguous domain language. Maintain glossary-only context lazily using CONTEXT-FORMAT.md. Record an ADR only for expensive-to-reverse, non-obvious trade-offs using ADR-FORMAT.md.
Write the resolved PLAN_FILE with:
Derive proof commands from the repository when possible. Ask only when what counts as success remains unclear. Start the append-only LOG_FILE with roles, model requests, scope, authorization and round limits. Keep run diagnostics outside the checkout.
With mode=review, load the supplied plan, fill only material gaps with the user as needed, and proceed directly to review; do not restart a requirements interview.
Use the shared runner in review mode with the actual --host, resolved --plan and optional model/effort. First round creates a session. Further rounds use --resume <previous-successful-result.json> with the same provider/model/effort and a host-authored --feedback file containing dispositions. Never use a guessed session id, --last, or a build session as a reviewer.
Each successful response contains a verdict, evidence-backed findings, actual coverage and limitations. Preserve the entire response and runner result path in LOG_FILE.
Stop at MAX_ROUNDS. Present unresolved findings and the host's position instead of manufacturing convergence. A changed plan requires another review. Before building, run the approval check on the final plan. If the user explicitly chooses to proceed without independent approval, record that override and use the standalone unreviewed-spec path; never label it approved.
Present the reviewed plan, improvements and remaining limits. If implementation is not already authorized, ask for that final decision. Use the selected builder, defaulting to the host. Read the build reference.
The host can implement directly with its normal tools. For a different builder, use the shared runner's build mode. Either path must capture the pre-build commit, preserve unrelated user work, and carry the same resolved plan and verification contract.
Run the agreed proof checks, inspect all changed files and review the result through the other provider in a fresh inspect session. Supply the pre-build commit and builder identity. Reinspection after accepted fixes also uses a fresh session. Log findings and dispositions; rerun affected proof checks after fixes.
If the coordinator takes over coding, it has become a builder. Require a fresh other-provider inspection of its changes; never describe the earlier inspection as covering later edits. If both providers contributed code, record authorship and have each inspect the other's changes; do not claim any model independently reviewed code it authored. If the inspection budget is exhausted, report remaining findings and unreviewed edits explicitly for the user's decision.
Present the final diff, proof results, inspection coverage, unresolved findings, deviations and rounds used. Honor existing commit/push authorization; otherwise leave the concrete diff ready for sign-off. External publication is never implied merely by running the loop.
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Recommend a model and a scoped handoff for a task in Claude Code or Codex. Use when choosing who should handle a task, seeking a second opinion, getting unstuck, or delegating focused work; execute one handoff when requested.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Have Codex implement a concrete work order and have Claude independently inspect the final changes. Preserves the explicit Codex builder choice; use claudex-loop for host-based planning and automatic reviewer selection.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Have Codex independently review an existing implementation plan while Claude coordinates a bounded revision loop. For automatic reviewer selection from either host, use claudex-loop with mode=review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; adds a Phase 0 research/recon pass + rebuilt interview) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan or design, one question at a time, recommending an answer for each and exploring the codebase when it can answer itself, until every branch of the decision tree is resolved. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-me-codex", "grill me then have codex review", "grill me and stress-test the plan", "interview me about this plan then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes (auth, schema, concurrency, migrations, payments) and wants both alignment AND a cross-model sanity check before implementation. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-me (MIT). For the docs-aware variant use /grill-with-docs-codex; if you already have a plan and want only the Codex review use /codex-review. NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; its docs-aware mode covers this variant) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening with living documentation. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan, one question at a time, challenging it against your project's existing domain model and glossary (CONTEXT.md), sharpening fuzzy terms, stress-testing with concrete scenarios, cross-referencing code, and updating CONTEXT.md + ADRs inline as decisions crystallise. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-with-docs-codex", "grill me against the docs then have codex review", "stress-test this against our domain model then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes in a project with established terminology/ADRs and wants alignment, documentation, AND a cross-model sanity check. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs (MIT). NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。