Agent skill

Review

by sendbird in sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository.

Apache-2.0Auto-check passedDevelopment

Install Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add sendbird/cc-plugin-codex --skill review -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install sendbird/cc-plugin-codex review --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sendbird/cc-plugin-codex.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/review .claude/skills/review && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
review
GitHub stars
222
Used in
1 other repo
Token cost
~3.2k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,767 words
Files
2
Skills in repo
7
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository.

  • Did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny
  • Calls git, node and claude
  • For Claude to own the implementation work

What it does

Review is an agent skill from sendbird/cc-plugin-codex. Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository. Args: --wait, --background, --base <ref, --scope <auto|working-tree|branch, --model <model, --effort <low|medium|high|xhigh|max. Defaults to opus with no forced effort. Use as the default path for ordinary code-review requests when the user did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny or for Claude to own the implementation work.

Its SKILL.md is about 3.2k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 2 other files (for example `agents/openai.yaml`).

It sits in Development, covering Code review. It works with Git. The repository describes itself as: An open-source plugin that runs inside Codex and lets you use Claude Code and Claude models for review, rescue, and tracked background workflows. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny
  • For Claude to own the implementation work

Example prompts

  • “/review”

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 19e5651. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git
    • node
    • claude
    • bash

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Review loads about 3.2k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 107 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,767 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~107
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.2k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from sendbird/cc-plugin-codex at commit 19e5651, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© sendbird). 1,767 words, ~3,220 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 1 other file; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
review
description
Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository. Args: --wait, --background, --base <ref>, --scope <auto|working-tree|branch>, --model <model>, --effort <low|medium|high|xhigh|max>. Defaults to opus with no forced effort. Use as the default path for ordinary code-review requests when the user did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny or for Claude to own the implementation work.

Claude Code Review

Use this skill when the user wants Claude Code to review the current working tree or a branch diff in this repository.

Use $cc:review as the default when the user asks for code review, asks you to have Claude review something, or wants a second review pass without explicitly asking for stronger adversarial scrutiny. If the user asks for stronger challenge on design, tradeoffs, rollout risk, migration risk, configuration behavior, or provides custom review focus text, route to $cc:adversarial-review instead. If the user wants Claude Code to investigate, validate by changing code, or actually fix/implement something, route to $cc:rescue instead. If the overall request is "you review it too, also ask Claude to review in the background, then you aggregate and fix it", keep the delegated Claude part on $cc:review unless the user explicitly asks for a harsher or more adversarial review. $cc:review does not accept custom focus text. If the user wants to steer Claude toward a particular angle, question, subsystem, or risk area, that is a signal to use $cc:adversarial-review instead.

Resolve <plugin-root> as two directories above this SKILL.md file. Always run the companion from that active plugin root: node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review ...

Supported arguments: --wait, --background, --base <ref>, --scope auto|working-tree|branch, --model <model>, --effort <low|medium|high|xhigh|max> (defaults: model=opus and no effort; fable, opus, sonnet, and haiku each keep Claude Code's own effort default, and Claude Code owns which effort levels each model supports)

Forward --model unchanged to the companion. The companion trims surrounding whitespace, canonicalizes the friendly aliases fable, opus, sonnet, and haiku to lowercase, then forwards every other --model value unchanged to Claude Code. Claude Code owns alias resolution and supported effort levels; /model is the authoritative picker for the current account and provider.

Raw slash-command arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Rules:

  • This skill is review-only. Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
  • Before launching the review, stay in read-only inspection mode: inspect git status and diff stats only, then ask at most one user question about whether to wait or run in background.
  • Preserve the user's review scope flags exactly.
  • Do not accept staged-only or unstaged-only review modes.
  • Do not add extra review instructions or focus text. Route those requests to $cc:adversarial-review.

Execution mode rules:

  • If the raw arguments include --wait, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground.
  • If the raw arguments include --background, do not ask. Run the review in background through the built-in review subagent path.
  • 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 even when git diff --shortstat is empty.
    • Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
    • Recommend waiting only when the 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 ask the user once which execution mode to use, offering two options with the recommended one first and its label suffixed (Recommended):
    • Wait for results
    • Run in background
  • Use a question tool for that ask only when this thread actually has one. Codex exposes request_user_input by default in interactive threads and hides it only when [tools] experimental_request_user_input = false, and it does not exist in non-interactive threads. If you have no question tool but a user is reading this thread, ask in your own reply and stop there. In a non-interactive thread with no user to answer, skip the ask and proceed with the recommended mode. Never spin on a wait or collaboration tool looking for a picker this thread does not have.

Argument handling:

  • Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
  • Treat --wait and --background as Codex-side execution controls only. Strip them before calling the companion command.
  • $cc:review is native-review only. It does not support staged-only review, unstaged-only review, or extra focus text.
  • If the user needs custom review instructions or more adversarial framing, they should use $cc:adversarial-review.
  • The companion review process itself always runs in the foreground. Background mode only changes how Codex launches that command.
  • For the detailed execution contract, treat the internal runtime reference at ../../internal-skills/review-runtime/runtime.md as supporting guidance only. It is an internal reference document, not a public skill to invoke.

Foreground flow:

  • Run: node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review --view-state on-success <arguments with --wait/--background removed>
  • Run that companion command with sandbox_permissions: "require_escalated" and the justification Allow the Claude Code companion to contact the Claude API for this requested review. Do not first try the companion command in the default network-disabled sandbox.
  • Foreground review belongs to the main Codex thread. Do not spawn a review subagent, do not invoke a generic review-runner role, and do not proxy this foreground path through any background worker abstraction.
  • Do not fall back to raw claude, claude-code, claude review, bash -lc ...claude..., or any other direct Claude CLI syntax when the companion path is available. The foreground syntax contract here is the resolved companion command above, not a hand-rolled Claude invocation.
  • If the resolved companion command fails, surface that failure. Do not silently retry foreground review through a different CLI shape, a generic review runner, or a custom shell wrapper.
  • Present the companion stdout faithfully.
  • Do not fix anything mentioned in the review output.

Background flow:

  • For background review, use Codex's built-in default subagent instead of a detached background shell command.
  • Do not satisfy background review by using a generic claude_review_runner-style helper role, raw Claude CLI, or any other review executor that bypasses the resolved companion command.
  • Never satisfy background review by running the companion command itself with shell backgrounding such as &, nohup, detached spawn, or any equivalent direct background process launch.
  • Background here means "spawn the forwarding child via spawn_agent and do not wait in the parent turn." The companion review command inside that child still runs once, in the foreground, inside the child thread.
  • Before spawning the built-in child, capture the review job id plus routing context in one call: node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" background-routing-context --kind review --json
  • If that helper returns a non-empty jobId, pass it into the companion command as an internal --job-id <reserved-job-id> routing flag.
  • Whenever forwarding that reserved --job-id, also pass --cwd <workspace-root> using workspaceRoot from the same helper response. Reserved job ids are workspace-scoped.
  • If that helper returns a non-empty ownerSessionId, include --owner-session-id <owner-session-id> in the companion command.
  • If it returns an empty ownerSessionId, omit --owner-session-id entirely. Never leave an empty placeholder such as --owner-session-id --job-id.
  • If that helper returns a non-empty parentThreadId, pass it into the child prompt as the parent thread id for one-shot completion notification.
  • If it returns an empty parentThreadId, omit the notification path instead of emitting a blank thread-id placeholder.
  • Spawn exactly one transient forwarding child through spawn_agent with:
    • fork_context: false
    • reasoning_effort: "medium"
    • no agent_type and no model, so the child uses the built-in default agent and inherits the parent model. Never pin a specific Codex model name here; the available catalog is owned by the host CLI and changes between releases.
  • Prefer a self-contained child message over inheriting parent history. The built-in review child should not rely on full parent thread replay for normal operation.
  • Only consider fork_context: true as a last resort for a short follow-up where essential context truly cannot be summarized. Avoid it for large or long-lived threads because it can exhaust the child context window.
  • Before spawning the built-in child, emit one short commentary update that clearly says the parent is starting the built-in review child on the inherited model at medium effort.
  • The built-in child must be a pure forwarder. It should:
    • run exactly one shell command
    • execute: node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review --view-state defer <arguments with --wait/--background removed>
    • run that command as one blocking foreground shell-tool call, not as a background terminal/session
    • do not request a shell session id, poll a shell session later, or return before the companion command exits
    • if the available shell tool is exec_command, call it once in non-interactive mode and wait for command exit in that same call
    • when using exec_command, pass sandbox_permissions: "require_escalated" and the justification Allow the Claude Code companion to contact the Claude API for this requested review. on that one call; do not first try the companion command in the default network-disabled sandbox
    • include --owner-session-id <owner-session-id> only when the parent resolved a non-empty owner session id
    • include --job-id <reserved-job-id> when the parent reserved one
    • include the matching --cwd <workspace-root> whenever the command includes that reserved --job-id
    • never leave an empty routing placeholder such as --owner-session-id --job-id
    • return only that command's stdout exactly, with no added commentary
    • ignore stderr progress chatter such as [cc] ... lines and preserve only the final stdout-equivalent result text
    • not inspect the repo or perform the review itself
    • if a parent thread id is available, allow one extra send_input call after a successful shell result and before finishing
    • the child prompt must mention the tool name send_input literally; do not replace it with a vague instruction like "send a message to the parent"
    • that send_input call must target the provided parent thread id, must happen at most once, and must not run on failure paths
    • that send_input call should use the exact tool shape send_input({ target: <parent-thread-id>, message: <steering-message> }) with no extra prose payload
    • if the parent provided a non-empty parent thread id, do not silently drop the completion notification path from the child prompt
    • if a reserved review job id is available, use this exact notification message: Background Claude Code review finished. Open it with $cc:result <reserved-job-id>.
    • otherwise fall back to: Background Claude Code review finished. Inspect it with $cc:status first, then use $cc:result for the finished job you want to open.
    • that send_input message should use one of those exact steering messages instead of inlining the raw review result
    • use these steering messages instead of embedding the raw review result in the notification
    • do not embed the raw Claude result inside the notification message
    • do not include any other prose in that notification message
    • use that same steering message as the child's own final assistant message instead of echoing the raw review result
  • Do not wait for completion in this turn.
  • After launching, tell the user: Claude Code review started in the background. Check the subagent session or $cc:status for progress, and once it's done, we will let you know to see the results.
  • Do not fix anything mentioned in the review output.

© sendbird, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 1 other file in skills/review of sendbird/cc-plugin-codex.

  • SKILL.md
  • agents/openai.yaml

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 19e5651

Used in 1 other repository

We found 1 copy of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 1 other GitHub owner. This page covers the copy in sendbird/cc-plugin-codex, which our catalogue first saw on October 7, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Review this skillsendbird/cc-plugin-codex2221 repos~3.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Code Review ChecklistshareAI-lab/learn-claude-code78k5 repos~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Understand Diff AnalysisEgonex-AI/Understand-Anything86k1 repos~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Open Code Review CLIalibaba/open-code-review44k—~3.1kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Hunk Diff Session Controlmodem-dev/hunk9.5k1 repos~3.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Open Code Review Delegatealibaba/open-code-review44k—~2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • Code Review Checklist

    shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code

    Reviews code against a five-part checklist covering security, correctness, performance, maintainability and testing, and reports findings in a fixed format.

    78k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Understand Diff Analysis

    Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything

    Reads your git changes or a pull request against a prebuilt knowledge graph of the project to explain what changed, which components are affected and what is risky.

    86k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~1.4k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Open Code Review CLI

    alibaba/open-code-review

    Runs the ocr command-line tool to review Git changes, a commit or a branch comparison with an AI model, returning line-level comments and optionally applying fixes.

    44k GitHub stars~3.1k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Interacts with live Hunk diff review sessions via CLI. Inspects review focus, navigates files, hunks, and exact lines, reloads session contents, adds inline…

    9.5k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~3.4k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Open Code Review Delegate

    alibaba/open-code-review

    Has the host agent do the code review itself while the ocr CLI handles file selection and rule lookup, covering workspace changes, branch ranges or single commits.

    44k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Code Review

    flutter/flutter

    Performs a comprehensive, multi-step code review of pull requests or local code changes, using iterative refinement (generation, critique, synthesis) to ensure high-quality, actionable feedback.

    179k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

  • Setup

    sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

    Check whether Claude Code CLI is ready in this environment and optionally toggle the turn-end review gate.

    222 GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~469 tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Adversarial Review

    sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

    Run a design-challenging Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository.

    222 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~3.3k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Rescue

    sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

    Delegate a substantial diagnosis, implementation, or follow-up task to Claude Code through the tracked-job runtime.

    222 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~4.7k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Status

    sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

    Show active or recent Claude Code jobs in this repository, or detailed status for a specific job id.

    222 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~242 tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Cancel

    sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

    Cancel an active tracked Claude Code job in this repository.

    222 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~169 tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Result

    sendbird/cc-plugin-codex

    Show the stored final output for a finished Claude Code job in this repository.

    222 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~159 tokens
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Categories

Questions about Review

What does Review do?

Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository. Review is an agent skill from sendbird/cc-plugin-codex. Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository.

When should I use Review?

Review fits situations like: did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny; for Claude to own the implementation work.

How do I install Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add sendbird/cc-plugin-codex --skill review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/review in sendbird/cc-plugin-codex) into .claude/skills/review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add sendbird/cc-plugin-codex --skill review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/review in sendbird/cc-plugin-codex) into .agents/skills/review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add sendbird/cc-plugin-codex --skill review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/review, .gemini/skills/review, .github/skills/review and .opencode/skills/review in your project.

What does Review need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Review needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git, node, claude and bash).

Does Review access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Review use?

Review is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Review use?

About 3.2k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 13k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Review: Code Review Checklist (shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code, 78k stars), Understand Diff Analysis (Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything, 86k stars), Open Code Review CLI (alibaba/open-code-review, 44k stars) and Hunk Diff Session Control (modem-dev/hunk, 9.5k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Review?

sendbird (a GitHub organization) maintains it in sendbird/cc-plugin-codex, which has 222 GitHub stars. The repository holds 7 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 5, 2026.

Source: sendbird/cc-plugin-codex on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.