Workflow
Step 1: Send to Codex for review
Use the codex subagent to review staged changes. Pass it the following prompt:
Review the staged git diff as a senior engineer. Provide:
- Critical Issues - bugs, security vulnerabilities, or breaking changes that MUST be fixed.
- Improvements - concrete suggestions for better code quality, performance, or maintainability.
- Nitpicks - minor style or preference items (low priority).
Be specific. Reference exact file paths and lines from the diff. Provide code examples for suggested fixes. Do NOT comment on formatting or whitespace. Do NOT suggest adding comments or docblocks unless something is genuinely confusing. Keep your review concise and actionable.
Step 2: Present the feedback
Display Codex's full review to the user in a clear, formatted way.
Step 3: Evaluate and implement
Read the staged diff yourself (git diff --cached) so you have full context,
then evaluate each piece of Codex's feedback:
- Implement suggestions that are clearly correct improvements (bugs, security issues, genuine code quality wins).
- Ignore anything that is purely stylistic preference, overly cautious, or conflicts with the project's established patterns, conventions, or CLAUDE.md rules.
- Explain briefly which suggestions you're implementing and which you're skipping (and why). You have greater context about this codebase than Codex does.
After making changes, re-stage the modified files.