Codex-Lead

Complementary ephemeral flag for /c-codex. Flips the next exchange from Claude-synthesizes (default) to Codex-primary, Claude-as-adversarial-checker. Single-use per invocation — must be re-armed each time.

Why This Exists

The default /c-codex contract keeps Claude in charge of synthesis: Claude frames the question, Codex critiques, Claude produces the comparison card. That is correct when Claude has strong repo context and Codex is being brought in for a divergent perspective.

But Codex is genuinely stronger on some tasks — particularly code review in languages or patterns where its training dominates. In those cases, the synthesis step can dilute Codex's findings. Codex-Lead flips the contract for one exchange so Codex drives the substance.

Scope

Codex-Lead only makes sense inside a /c-codex exchange. If the user invokes it without an active or pending /c-codex call, the skill refuses and redirects:

/codex-lead is a flag for /c-codex. It has no effect on its own.
Either invoke /c-codex with the codex-lead flag set, or drop the flag.

The skill cannot be used to hand control to Codex on any workflow that is not routed through /c-codex.

When It Triggers

The Flipped Contract

1. Claude provides a minimal brief — diff, plan, files in scope. Facts only, no opinions, so Codex isn't anchored by Claude's reading.
2. Codex produces the primary output. Full review or plan critique; Codex drives the substance.
3. Claude verifies every concrete claim against the repo. This is the load-bearing step. Codex can hallucinate file paths, line numbers, and function names — Claude is the ground-truth filter.
4. Claude adds adversarial findings. Things Codex missed, false positives Codex raised, anywhere Codex's claim contradicts the actual code.
5. Claude presents the merged output with clear attribution — the user must always see who said what.

Output Format

┌─ /c-codex (codex-lead) — <planning | code-review> ─────────────┐
│ Codex's primary findings (verified):                      │
│   ✓ <point>  [verified against file:line]                 │
│   ✓ <point>  [verified against file:line]                 │
│                                                           │
│ Codex raised, Claude could not verify / disputes:         │
│   ✗ <point> — Codex cited <X>. Actual: <Y>.               │
│                                                           │
│ Claude adds (missed by Codex):                            │
│   + <point> at file:line                                   │
│                                                           │
│ Recommended action:                                       │
│   <1–2 lines>                                             │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

When It's Appropriate — and When It Isn't

Guardrails