codex-ab
Skill573 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run an A/B codex review experiment — holistic codex review vs 3 focused dimension passes (security, ecto, liveview) on the branch diff, classify findings, report a panel-value verdict. Use when the branch is fresh, before any codex review runs.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- cc-changelogSkill
- docs-checkSkill
- plugin-dev-workflowSkill
- promoteSkill
- releaseSkill
- session-deep-diveSkill
- session-scanSkill
- session-trendsSkill
- skill-monitorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 32
NO FINDINGS everywhere and proves nothing — wasted quota
- Very specific: line 44
Run command -v codex — missing → STOP with install hint.
- Distinctive: line 47
Ask: "Has codex already reviewed this branch (PR review or codex-loop)?" If yes → STOP, explain the fresh-diff requirement (Iron Law 1)
- Distinctive: line 48
If yes → STOP, explain the fresh-diff requirement (Iron Law 1)
- Very specific: line 57
Use run_in_background — it runs 1 holistic codex exec review + 3 focused codex exec workers (security / ecto / liveview) in parallel, all …
- Very specific: line 63
Read the 4 findings files (holistic.md, security.md, ecto.md, liveview.md — small).
- Very specific: line 85
Write the verdict table to .claude/reviews/codex-ab-{date}/VERDICT.md.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Codex Panel A/B (contributor instrument — verdict decided)
Answer one question with evidence: do dimension-focused codex passes find
real issues that one holistic codex exec review misses? Runs both on the
same diff, then classifies every focused finding against the holistic pass.
DECIDED 2026-07-10 after 4 runs (2 fresh): panel KILLED. Fresh-only 1 real miss / 1 false positive plus one zero-value run at 4× cost — real misses did not outnumber FPs. Kept as contributor tooling (NOT distributed) for one possible retest: a UI-heavy diff with a single extra liveview-focused pass (2× cost). Scoreboard:
.claude/research/2026-07-03-codex-review-integration.md§7.
Usage
/codex-ab # A/B against main (~5 min, 4 codex runs)
/codex-ab develop # explicit base branchIron Laws
- FRESH DIFF ONLY — ask the user to confirm this branch has NOT been
codex-reviewed yet (cloud or
/phx:codex-loop). A drained diff returns NO FINDINGS everywhere and proves nothing — wasted quota - Verify every REAL MISS in the code before counting it — a focused finding only scores if the issue actually exists at that file:line
- Read ONLY the findings
.mdfiles — streams are diverted to.logfiles; never cat a log into context (10k+ lines each) - Exactly 4 codex runs, never re-run dimensions — bounded quota
- Persist the verdict — an unrecorded experiment is wasted quota
Workflow
Step 1: Preflight
Run command -v codex — missing → STOP with install hint. Then:
git status --shortdirty → warn (codex flags local dirt as findings)- Ask: "Has codex already reviewed this branch (PR review or codex-loop)?" If yes → STOP, explain the fresh-diff requirement (Iron Law 1)
Step 2: Run the A/B (background, ~5 min)
bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/codex-panel-ab.sh {base} \
.claude/reviews/codex-ab-$(date +%Y-%m-%d-%H%M)Use run_in_background — it runs 1 holistic codex exec review + 3
focused codex exec workers (security / ecto / liveview) in parallel,
all streams redirected. Do other work or wait; never poll.
Step 3: Classify
Read the 4 findings files (holistic.md, security.md, ecto.md,
liveview.md — small). For EACH focused finding:
| Class | Meaning | Test |
| DUPLICATE | Holistic already found it | Same file + same defect |
| REAL MISS | Genuine issue holistic missed | Read the code at file:line — defect confirmed (Iron Law 2) |
| FALSE POSITIVE | Manufactured, pre-existing, or wrong | Code check fails, or issue exists on base branch too |
Step 4: Verdict
Present:
## Codex Panel A/B — {branch} vs {base}
| dimension | findings | duplicate | real miss | false positive |
Holistic-only findings: {n}
Verdict this run: {REAL MISS count} real miss vs {FP count} false positive
Decision rule: build --codex-panel only if real misses outnumber false
positives across 2-3 fresh branches.Write the verdict table to .claude/reviews/codex-ab-{date}/VERDICT.md.
Suggest repeating on the next 1–2 fresh branches before deciding.
Integration
fresh branch → /codex-ab (YOU ARE HERE) → verdict logged
├─ real misses win across runs → build /phx:review --codex-panel
└─ duplicates/FPs win → keep holistic /phx:codex-loop, drop panel idea
└─ OUTCOME 2026-07-10: this branch won — panel droppedReferences
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/codex-panel-ab.sh— the 4-run harness- Related:
/phx:codex-loop(holistic fix loop),/phx:review --codex
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.

