Staff Code Review

---

name: staff-code-review description: Review code changes with staff-level depth by reusing the source workflow under claude/staff-code-review. Use when the user wants a thorough review beyond line-level correctness. metadata: short-description: Review changes at staff level

Staff Code Review

Use this skill when the user wants a staff-level review of a PR, diff, or code change.

This is a thin Codex wrapper around claude/staff-code-review/skills/staff-code-review/SKILL.md. Reuse the source workflow, references, scripts, and eval material from the Claude skill directory instead of maintaining duplicated Codex copies.

Use This Skill

• Use this skill when the user wants a staff-level review of a PR, diff, or code change.

Do Not Use This Skill

• Do not use this skill for a quick syntax check or lightweight lint feedback.

Source Material

• Source skill: claude/staff-code-review/skills/staff-code-review/SKILL.md
• Source directory: claude/staff-code-review/skills/staff-code-review/
• Codex metadata: agents/openai.yaml

Load only the source files needed for the current task. Do not recreate or copy the Claude-side bundled resources into this Codex skill.

Workflow

1. Treat claude/staff-code-review/skills/staff-code-review/SKILL.md as the source workflow.
2. Read the needed source references from claude/staff-code-review/skills/staff-code-review/references/ before escalating findings in those dimensions.
3. Ground the review in actual codebase context and report findings first, ordered by severity.
4. The source workflow fans out to many subagents (Pass 1.5 Explore brief, seven dimension personas, the Code Adversary, Pass 2.5 translation, the Findings Adversary, and a humanize pass). Run them per the "Codex execution notes" below - inline by default - rather than copying Claude's Agent / subagent_type calls.

Codex execution notes - subagent spawning

The source workflow assumes Claude's Agent tool and named council:* subagent types, neither of which exists on Codex. It also fans out well past Codex's limits: a Research-Brief Explore agent, seven dimension personas, a Code Adversary, a per-persona translation pass, a Findings Adversary, and a humanize pass. Codex subagent fan-out is fragile at that size - as of mid-2026 the default agents.max_threads is 6, completed subagents do not free their slot unless explicitly closed (openai/codex#22779), and subagents can finish without returning their payload (#16051). Therefore:

• Default: sequential / inline. Do NOT spawn one subagent per dimension. Build the Research Brief yourself (grep/read), then work each dimension's checklist from references/ in turn in its own lens, then run the Code Adversary and the Findings Adversary as inline red-team passes. The council:* persona types are unavailable, so apply each lens directly and emit conventional-comment format - this makes Pass 2.5 (translation) a no-op, so skip it. Humanize inline.
• Optional parallel mode (only if the user asks and has raised agents.max_threads). Cap concurrency at <= 5, run the dimensions in waves, close_agent each reviewer as soon as it returns (completion alone does not free the slot), and verify each returned a payload before synthesizing - re-run any missing one inline. Keep both adversary passes as final inline steps. Never assume all spawned reviewers reported.
• Use native agent tools only for agent state (spawn_agent / wait_agent / close_agent); do not run nested codex exec, and do not use shell (ps, pgrep, ls, rg) for agent orchestration.

Codex Notes

• Ignore Claude-only frontmatter and runtime wiring such as allowed-tools, user-invocable, $ARGUMENTS, and CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR.
• Infer inputs from the user request and local context before asking follow-up questions.
• If a source script or networked command fails because of sandbox restrictions, rerun it with escalation and a short justification.
• For destructive or irreversible actions, confirm intent unless the user was already explicit.

Verification

After any fix or state-changing action, rerun the narrowest relevant validator, script, listing command, or source check and compare the before/after result.

1. Re-check the key output, diff, command result, or rendered text after you act.
2. If the task changed files or external state, rerun the narrowest relevant validator, script, listing command, or source query.
3. Report what was verified, what remains unverified, and any residual risk.

Examples