grill-me-codex
Skill4 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
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.
4 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sharanlabs/claude-os-publictheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jaron-goh-centr/claude-skillsedited, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- dachent/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 9, 2026
- gregpa/claude-skillsedited, first seen Jul 29, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- gregpa/claude-skills★ 067% same
- jaron-goh-centr/claude-skills★ 069% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- dachent/skills★ 27same name
- sharanlabs/claude-os-public★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository79 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- 21st-magicSkill
- alpacaSkill
- ask-mattSkill
- autoresearchSkill
- auto-stage-commitSkill
- browser-harnessSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- codeburnSkill
- codex-reviewSkill
- compact-memorySkill
- connect-recommendSkill
- connect-required-verification-informationSkill
- decision-mappingSkill
- delegate-taskSkill
- design-an-interfaceSkill
- design-mdSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- edit-articleSkill
- extract-designSkill
- ffmpegSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- firecrawlSkill
- generateSkill
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docs-codexSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- gwSkill
- handoffSkill
- implementSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- kie-aiSkill
- lightragSkill
- llmfitSkill
- loop-meSkill
- migrate-to-shoehornSkill
- notebooklmSkill
- obsidian-vaultSkill
- openspaceSkill
- playwrightSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qaSkill
- request-refactor-planSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- reviewSkill
- roastSkill
- scaffold-exercisesSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- setup-matt-pocock-skillsSkill
- setup-pre-commitSkill
- site-teardownSkill
- skill-discoverySkill
- skilluiSkill
- spline-3dSkill
- stripe-appsSkill
- stripe-best-practicesSkill
- stripe-directorySkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 25
When the decision tree is resolved and we're aligned, write the agreed plan to PLAN.md in this structure, then move to Act 2:
- Very specific: line 62
Do NOT pin -m. Use the config default.
- Very specific: line 71
If invoked with e.g. rounds=3, use that for MAX_ROUNDS.
- Very specific: line 96
Read /tmp/codex-verdict.txt.
- Very specific: line 100
If round > MAX_ROUNDS → break to Resolution (deadlock).
- Very specific: line 104
MAX_ROUNDS hit without APPROVED (deadlock): do NOT fake convergence. List each unresolved point + Claude's counter-position.
- Very specific: line 117
Don't review already-written code — that's /codex:review.
- Very specific: line 118
Don't pin a -codex model variant on ChatGPT-account auth — it 400s.
- Distinctive: line 119
Don't let Codex edit files.
- Distinctive: line 120
Don't skip Act 1 — the grill is half the value.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Grill-Me-Codex — Get Grilled, Then Get Reviewed
Two acts, two different jobs:
- Act 1 fixes the #1 failure mode: building the wrong thing. Claude interrogates you until intent is locked — no guessing at ambiguity. (This act is Matt Pocock's
grill-me, used under MIT — seeTHIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md.) - Act 2 fixes the #2 failure mode: a plan that sounds right but breaks. A different model (Codex) adversarially attacks the locked plan. Cross-model = no echo chamber.
You enter at two points only: answering the grill, and signing off the converged plan. Codex is read-only the whole time and never touches a file.
ACT 1 — GRILL (you ↔ Claude)
Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for my answer before continuing.
If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
When the decision tree is resolved and we're aligned, write the agreed plan to PLAN.md in this structure, then move to Act 2:
# Plan: <task>
_Locked via grill — by Claude + <user>_
## Goal
<one paragraph — reflects what the grilling actually settled>
## Approach
<numbered, concrete steps>
## Key decisions & tradeoffs
<the contestable choices the grill resolved — name them so Codex has something to bite>
## Risks / open questions
<anything still genuinely open>
## Out of scope
<bounds the grill established>Initialize PLAN-REVIEW-LOG.md:
# Plan Review Log: <task>
Act 1 (grill) complete — plan locked with the user. MAX_ROUNDS=<n>.ACT 2 — REVIEW (Claude ↔ Codex)
Now hand the locked plan to Codex for adversarial review. Same engine, mechanics verified end-to-end (2026-06-04).
Prerequisites (verify once, fast)
codex --version≥ 0.130 (older CLIs error on the defaultgpt-5.5model).- Codex authenticated (prior
codex login; ChatGPT account is fine). On auth/model error, surface it — don't silently retry. - Do NOT pin
-m. Use the config default. Pinninggpt-5.x-codexvariants 400s on ChatGPT-account auth.
Tunables (read from args, else default)
| Var | Default | Meaning |
MAX_ROUNDS | 5 | Hard cap on review rounds. The loop ALWAYS terminates here. |
PLAN_FILE | PLAN.md | The plan Act 1 produced. |
LOG_FILE | PLAN-REVIEW-LOG.md | Append-only argument transcript. The artifact. |
If invoked with e.g. rounds=3, use that for MAX_ROUNDS. Echo resolved values before starting.
The review prompt (sent each round)
You are an adversarial reviewer for an implementation plan. Be skeptical and specific — your job is to find what breaks, not to be agreeable. Read the plan at
PLAN.mdand any repo files you need (you are read-only). Identify concrete flaws: security holes, race conditions, missing edge cases, schema conflicts, wrong assumptions, observability gaps, simpler alternatives. For each, give a one-line fix. Do NOT modify any files. End your reply with EXACTLY one line:VERDICT: APPROVEDif the plan is sound enough to implement, orVERDICT: REVISEif it still has material problems.
Round 1 — fresh session (capture thread_id)
codex exec -s read-only --json -o /tmp/codex-verdict.txt "$(cat REVIEW_PROMPT)" \
2>/dev/null | grep '"type":"thread.started"'Parse thread_id from the {"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"..."} line → that's THREAD_ID. The critique is in /tmp/codex-verdict.txt. Confirm success by the verdict file + a thread.started line; if neither appears, the run failed (auth/model) — stop and tell the user. 2>/dev/null suppresses cosmetic MCP/auth stderr noise.
Rounds 2..MAX — resume the SAME session (Codex remembers its prior critiques)
# resume REJECTS -s. Force read-only via -c sandbox_mode, or Codex inherits
# config.toml (possibly danger-full-access) and could WRITE files. This is the
# single most important safety line in the skill — verified 2026-06-04.
codex exec resume "$THREAD_ID" -c sandbox_mode="read-only" --json \
-o /tmp/codex-verdict.txt \
"I revised the plan. Re-review PLAN.md — check whether your prior findings are addressed and flag anything new. End with VERDICT: APPROVED or VERDICT: REVISE." \
2>/dev/null >/dev/nullBoth codex exec and codex exec resume support --json and -o/--output-last-message.
Each round, after Codex returns
- Read
/tmp/codex-verdict.txt; append toLOG_FILE:## Round <n> — Codex+ the full critique. - Grep the last line for the verdict:
VERDICT: APPROVED→ break to Resolution (converged).VERDICT: REVISE→ Claude decides what's actually worth acting on (Claude is final arbiter — Codex advises, doesn't command). RevisePLAN_FILE. Append### Claude's responsetoLOG_FILE: what changed, what was rejected, why. Increment round.
- If round >
MAX_ROUNDS→ break to Resolution (deadlock).
Resolution (you sign off — final gate)
- APPROVED: present the final
PLAN_FILE, a 3-bullet summary of what the two acts improved, and the round count. Ask: "Grilled + survived N rounds of Codex. Implement it now?" Code only on yes. No code is written during either act. - MAX_ROUNDS hit without APPROVED (deadlock): do NOT fake convergence. List each unresolved point + Claude's counter-position; hand it to the user to break the tie. A flagged disagreement beats a false "approved."
Hard rules
- Act 1 always precedes Act 2 — don't write
PLAN.mduntil the grill has actually resolved the decision tree with the user. - Codex is read-only EVERY round —
-s read-onlyfirst call,-c sandbox_mode="read-only"on every resume (resume has no-s). It never writes. - The loop ALWAYS terminates at
MAX_ROUNDS. - Claude is final arbiter on every REVISE — incorporate good critiques, reject bad ones with a logged reason. Don't cave to everything (defeats the cross-model check) and don't ignore it (defeats the point).
- Code only after the user's final sign-off.
LOG_FILEis the deliverable — keep the whole argument.
What NOT to do
- Don't review already-written code — that's
/codex:review. - Don't pin a
-codexmodel variant on ChatGPT-account auth — it 400s. - Don't let Codex edit files. Read-only, always.
- Don't skip Act 1 — the grill is half the value.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

