You're now entering serious work mode. The task: $ARGUMENTS

The dev loop is: understand the problem, plan with an explicit intent contract, implement in reviewable slices, validate, and run adversarial review gates.

Review Cycle

Define REVIEW(target, reviewer = codex:codex-rescue) as:

run reviewer on target.
triage findings by severity: fix correctness and security always; fix maintainability findings that affect more than a single local spot; skip cosmetic nitpicks. Explicitly note what you skip and why.
repeat from step 1 until a round yields no new actionable findings, or after 3 rounds total. If findings are still unresolved after 3 rounds, surface them to the user and let them decide.

If the default reviewer is not available, abort and ask the user to fix. Substitute another review tool when the user prefers one (e.g. opencode in non-interactive mode or https://github.com/arsenyinfo/nitpicker)

Every REVIEW prompt must ask for concrete findings with file/line evidence across these lenses:

correctness, security, performance, data loss, races, partial failure, and logic consistency;
scope creep: unrelated changes, hidden behavior changes, or extra features not needed for the task;
overengineering: pass-through wrappers, factories for one implementation, producer-side interfaces, layer-cake delegation, future-proof hooks, and fallback paths that hide errors;
tests: missing behavior coverage, untested error paths, fake tests, and mocks/monkeypatches of the system under test's own internals;
project fit: naming, error handling, logging, imports, comments, and structure must match the existing codebase and CLAUDE.md.

large-feature

Review Cycle