Install
$ agentstack add skill-vcnoc-claude-code-zen-mcp-skill-work-codex-code-reviewer ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Codex Code Reviewer
Overview
This skill provides a systematic, iterative code review workflow powered by zen mcp's codex tool. It automatically checks recently modified code files against project standards (CLAUDE.md requirements), presents identified issues to users for approval, applies fixes, and re-validates until code quality standards are met or the maximum iteration limit is reached.
Operation Modes:
- Interactive Mode (Default): Present issues to user, wait for approval before applying fixes
- Full Automation Mode: Automatically select and apply all suggested fixes without user approval (activated when user initially requests "full automation" or "complete automation")
When to Use This Skill
Trigger this skill when the user says:
- "Use codex to check the code"
- "Please help me check if the recently generated code has any issues"
- "Check the code after each generation"
- Similar requests for code quality validation using codex
Workflow: Iterative Code Review Cycle
Prerequisites
Before starting the review cycle:
- Read Operation Mode from Context (automation_mode - READ FROM SSOT):
- automation_mode definition and constraints: See CLAUDE.md「📚 共享概念速查」
- This skill's role: Skill Layer (read-only), read from context
[AUTOMATION_MODE: true/false], true → auto-fix / false → ask user
1a. Read Coverage Target from Context (coverage_target - READ FROM SSOT):
- coverage_target definition and constraints: See CLAUDE.md「📚 共享概念速查」
- This skill's role: Skill Layer (read-only), read from context
[COVERAGE_TARGET: X%], validate coverage (≥ target pass, max_iterations → Exit loop, report remaining issues - User cancellation: User declined fixes → Exit loop
- Continue: Issues remain and iterations = 2 AND no issues found in both passes → Exit loop, report success
- Max iterations reached: currentiteration > maxiterations → Exit loop, report remaining issues
- User cancellation: User declined fixes → Exit loop
- Continue: Issues remain OR minimum passes not met → Go to Step 1
Termination and Reporting
When the cycle terminates, provide a final report:
Code Review Completion Report:
Review rounds: X / 5
Reviewed files: [list files]
Tools used:
- Round 1: mcp__zen__codereview (codex workflow validation)
- Round 2: mcp__zen__clink (codex CLI direct analysis)
- Round 3+: mcp__zen__clink (continued)
Final status:
- All issues fixed / Max reviews reached / User cancelled
- [Final Validation Mode] Completed minimum 2 passes / Did not meet minimum 2 pass requirement
Fix summary:
- Fixed issues: X
- Remaining issues: Y (if any)
Recommendations: [next steps]
Code Quality Standards
This skill enforces standards defined in:
- CLAUDE.md: Global rules (G1-G11), phase-specific requirements (P1-P4), model development workflow
- Project-specific: PROJECTWIKI.md architecture decisions and conventions
Key quality dimensions checked:
- Code Quality: Readability, maintainability, complexity
- Security: Vulnerabilities, sensitive data handling
- Performance: Efficiency, resource usage
- Architecture: Adherence to documented design decisions
- Documentation: Code comments, PROJECTWIKI.md alignment
Test Coverage Standards (G9 Compliance):
- coverage_target usage and thresholds: See CLAUDE.md「📚 共享概念速查」
See references/quality_standards/README.md for on-demand quality standards (load specific files as needed).
Best Practices
For Effective Reviews
- Scope Control: Review recently modified files only (use git diff/status)
- Context Preservation: Maintain continuation_id across review cycles for context continuity
- Incremental Fixes: Address high-severity issues first, then iterate for lower-priority ones
- User Communication: Always explain WHY an issue matters and HOW the fix improves code
Error Handling
- Tool Errors: If
mcp__zen__codereviewfails, report to user and offer manual review - Ambiguous Issues: When codex findings are unclear, seek user clarification before fixing
- Conflicting Standards: If global and project-specific CLAUDE.md conflict, prioritize global CLAUDE.md
Resources
references/quality_standards/README.md
Quality standards index and on-demand loading guide. Load this reference when:
- Need overview of available quality standards
- Detailed quality criteria are needed
Then load specific standard files as needed:
global_rules.md- G1-G8 全局规则core_principles.md- 核心开发原则p3_constraints_and_quality.md- P3执行约束commit_and_quality_gates.md- Conventional Commits规范error_handling_and_usage.md- P4错误处理
Use grep patterns to search: G1|G2|core principles|ethics|reproducible
Example Usage
Example 1: Interactive Mode (Default)
User: "Use codex to check the code"
Workflow:
- Identify files: src/features.py, src/model_training.py
- Read context:
[AUTOMATION_MODE: false]→ Interactive mode - Round 1 (
mcp__zen__codereview): Found 3 issues (1 critical, 1 medium, 1 low) - Ask user approval → User: "Yes"
- Apply fixes
- Round 2 (
mcp__zen__clink): No new issues - Result: All issues fixed in 2/5 rounds
Example 2: Full Automation Mode ⭐
User Initial Request: "Full automation, help me develop login functionality, automatically check quality after code completion"
Main Router: Detects "full automation" → Sets automation_mode = true
After code generation, Main Claude invokes codex-code-reviewer with automation_mode = true:
Assistant:
Alright, I will use codex to systematically review the just-generated code.
First, let me identify recently modified files...
[Running git status]
Found the following modified files:
- src/auth/login.py
- src/auth/session.py
- tests/test_login.py
Reading context: [AUTOMATION_MODE: true]
Mode: Full automation review (automatically select and apply fixes)
Starting round 1 review...
[Calling mcp__zen__codereview]
Review results:
Found 5 issues:
[Critical] src/auth/login.py:45 - SQL injection risk (critical)
[Critical] src/auth/session.py:23 - Plaintext password storage (critical)
[Medium] src/auth/login.py:78 - Missing exception handling (medium)
[Medium] src/auth/session.py:56 - Performance issue: N+1 query (medium)
[Low] tests/test_login.py:12 - Non-standard test naming (low)
[Full Automation Mode] Auto-decision + fixes applied:
[Automated Fix Record] Fixed: 2 critical, 2 medium, 1 low
1. SQL injection (critical) → Fixed with parameterized queries
2. Plaintext password (critical) → Fixed with bcrypt encryption
3. Exception handling (medium) → Fixed with try-except blocks
4. N+1 query (medium) → Fixed with select_related optimization
5. Test naming (low) → Fixed by renaming to standard convention
Fixes completed. Starting round 2 review...
[Calling mcp__zen__clink with codex CLI]
Review results: No new issues found
Code review complete!
Review rounds: 2 / 5
Tools used:
- Round 1: mcp__zen__codereview
- Round 2: mcp__zen__clink (codex CLI)
Full automation mode: Auto-fixed 5 issues, skipped 0 issues
All issues successfully fixed without user intervention.
Key Differences: No user approval, auto-decision by severity/safety, transparent logging with rationale, same quality standards
Example 3: Final Validation Mode (Project Completion/Final Quality Verification) ⭐⭐
User: "Project is complete, please perform final quality verification"
Workflow:
- Detect: Project completion/final verification → Enable Final Validation Mode (min 2 rounds)
- Identify files: 5 core files (src + tests)
- Round 1 (
mcp__zen__codereview): Found 2 issues (1 medium, 1 low) - Ask user approval → User: "Yes" → Apply fixes
- Round 2 (
mcp__zen__clinkwith codex CLI): No new issues - Result: All issues fixed, minimum 2-round requirement met, quality verification passed
Key Features: Mandatory 2+ passes (codereview + clink), early exit prevention, comprehensive validation before release
Notes
- Dual-tool approach: Iteration 1 uses
mcp__zen__codereview, iteration 2+ usesmcp__zen__clinkwith codex CLI - Max 5 iterations, CLAUDE.md workflow compatible (P3/P4), three modes: Interactive (default) / Full Automation / Final Validation (2+ passes)
- automationmode & autolog (READ FROM SSOT):
- Definitions and constraints: See CLAUDE.md「📚 共享概念速查」
- This skill: Skill Layer (read-only), outputs
[Automated Decision Record]fragments when automation_mode=true - Final validation mode activated when user mentions "project completion" / "final verification" / "final quality validation"
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: VCnoC
- Source: VCnoC/Claude-Code-Zen-mcp-Skill-Work
- License: Apache-2.0
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.