adversarial review

--- description: Run a Codex review that challenges the implementation approach and design choices argument-hint: '[--wait|--background] [--base <ref>] [--scope auto|working-tree|branch] [focus ...]' disable-model-invocation: true allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(node:), Bash(git:), AskUserQuestion --- Run an adversarial Codex review through the shared plugin runtime. Position it as a challenge review that questions the chosen implementation, design choices, tradeoffs, and assumptions. It is not just a stricter pass over implementation defects. Raw slash-command arguments: $ARGUMENTS Core constraint: - This command is review-only. - Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes. - Your only job is to run the review and return Codex's output verbatim to the user. - Keep the framing focused on whether the current approach is the right one, what assumptions it depends on, and where the design could fail under real-world conditions. Execution mode rules: - If the raw arguments include --wait, do not ask. Run in the foreground. - If the raw arguments include --background, do not ask. Run in a Claude background task. - Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking: - For working-tree review, start with git status --short --untracked-files=all. - For working-tree review, also inspect both git diff --shortstat --cached and git diff --shortstat. - For base-branch review, use git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD. - Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work for auto or working-tree review even when git diff --shortstat is empty. - Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant scope is actually empty. - Recommend waiting only when the scoped review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change. - In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background. - When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review. - Then use AskUserQuestion exactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with (Recommended): - Wait for results - Run in background Argument handling: - Preserve the user's arguments exactly. - Do not strip --wait or --background yourself. - Do not weaken the adversarial framing or rewrite the user's focus text. - The companion script parses --wait and --background, but Claude Code's Bash(..., run_in_background: true) is what actually detaches the run. - /codex:adversarial-review uses the same review target selection as /codex:review. - It supports working-tree review, branch review, and --base <ref>. - It does not support --scope staged or --scope unstaged. - Unlike /codex:review, it can still take extra focus text after the flags. Foreground flow: - Run: ``bash node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-companion.mjs" adversarial-review "$ARGUMENTS" ` - Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is. - Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it. - Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output. Background flow: - Launch the review with Bash in the background: `typescript Bash({ command: node "${CLAUDEPLUGINROOT}/scripts/codex-companion.mjs" adversarial-review "$ARGUMENTS", description: "Codex adversarial review", run_in_background: true }) ` - Do not call BashOutput or wait for completion in this turn. - After launching the command, tell the user: "Codex adversarial review started in the background. Check /codex:status` for progress."