Skip to content

codex-invocation.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
102 lines (76 loc) · 3.28 KB

codex-invocation.md

File metadata and controls

102 lines (76 loc) · 3.28 KB

Codex Invocation Rule ⚠️ CRITICAL

Codex must independently research. Never feed conclusions.

Core Principle

Codex is a second pair of eyes — not a rubber stamp.
If you tell Codex the answer and ask "is this right?", you get zero value.

Required: Independent Research Instructions

Every mcp__codex__codex call MUST include this section in the prompt:

## ⚠️ Important: You must independently research the project ⚠️

When reviewing, you **must** perform the following research:

### Git Exploration (Priority)
1. Check change status: `git status`
2. Check changed files: `git diff --name-only HEAD`
3. Check full changes for specific file: `git diff HEAD -- <file-path>`
4. Read changed files: `cat <changed file> | head -200`

### Project Research
- Search related code: `grep -r "keyword" src/ --include="*.ts" -l`
- Read related files: `cat <file-path> | head -100`

Prohibited Patterns

Pattern Example Why It's Wrong
Feeding full diff/content "## Git Diff \``diff ... 2000 lines ...```"` Wastes tokens, Codex sees truncated slice instead of full context
Feeding code "Here's the fix: \``code``` Is it correct?"` Codex only sees what you show, can't find what you missed
Feeding conclusion "Claude found the bug is in X, confirm?" Presupposes the answer, Codex won't challenge it
Leading question "I think the problem is caching, verify?" Anchors Codex to your hypothesis
Scope restriction "Only look at src/service/" Prevents discovering issues in related files
Confirmation prompt "These fixes look good, right?" Invites agreement, not independent analysis

Correct Pattern

// ✅ CORRECT: Give metadata + mandate independent exploration
mcp__codex__codex({
  prompt: `You are a senior Code Reviewer...

## Changed Files
${CHANGED_FILES}

## Diff Stats
${DIFF_STAT}

## ⚠️ You must independently research the project ⚠️
[... full research instructions: git diff, cat, grep ...]

## Review Dimensions
[... checklist ...]`,
  sandbox: 'read-only',
  'approval-policy': 'never',
});
// ❌ WRONG: Feed fix and ask for confirmation
mcp__codex__codex({
  prompt: `Two issues were fixed:
1. simulate.ts: to field is now omitted...
2. summary.ts: Contract creation now returns...

\`\`\`typescript
// the fix code
\`\`\`

Are these fixes correct?`,
  sandbox: 'read-only',
});

Enforcement Checklist

Before every mcp__codex__codex call, verify:

Check Required
Prompt includes "independently research" section ✅
Prompt includes concrete git/grep commands ✅
Prompt does NOT contain Claude's analysis results ✅
Prompt does NOT ask "is this correct/right?" ✅
sandbox: 'read-only' set (for review operations) ✅
'approval-policy': 'never' set ✅
Uses prompt template from @skills/*/references/ ✅

Loop Review Exception

For mcp__codex__codex-reply (continuing a previous thread), providing the new diff is acceptable because Codex already has full project context from the initial review. But still:

  • Provide the diff, not your interpretation of it
  • Ask Codex to verify fixes, not confirm your fixes
  • Include: "Did fixes introduce new issues?"