examen contradictoire

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:

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:

Bash({
  command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-companion.mjs" adversarial-review "$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."