Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Run a Codex review that questions whether your chosen approach is the right one — not just whether it is implemented correctly. The review challenges assumptions, surfaces tradeoffs, examines failure modes, and asks whether a different approach would have been safer or simpler. This command uses the same review target selection as /codex:review, including --base <ref> for branch review. Unlike /codex:review, it accepts extra focus text after the flags to steer the review toward specific areas of concern.

​
Syntax

/codex:adversarial-review [--wait|--background] [--base <ref>] [--scope auto|working-tree|branch] [focus ...]

​
Flags

​
--wait
boolean
Run the review in the foreground and wait for results.
​
--background
boolean
Run the review as a background job. Check progress with /codex:status.
​
--base
string
Compare against this git ref. Accepts a branch name, tag, or commit hash — for example, main.
​
--scope
string
Controls what is included in the review. Accepted values:
  • auto (default) — reviews the working tree if dirty, otherwise compares against the detected default branch
  • working-tree — always reviews uncommitted changes
  • branch — compares against the auto-detected default branch (main, master, or trunk)
​
focus text
string
Optional positional text added after the flags. Use this to give the review a specific focus — for example, challenge whether this was the right caching and retry design.

​
Examples

/codex:adversarial-review
/codex:adversarial-review --base main challenge whether this was the right caching and retry design
/codex:adversarial-review --background look for race conditions and question the chosen approach

​
When to use it

  • Before shipping, when you want to challenge the direction — not just catch implementation bugs
  • When you want focused scrutiny on design choices, tradeoffs, and hidden assumptions
  • When you want to pressure-test specific risk areas like authentication, data loss, rollback behavior, race conditions, or reliability under failure

​
Difference from /codex:review

/codex:review maps directly to the built-in Codex reviewer and does not support custom focus text. /codex:adversarial-review accepts extra focus text and frames the review around whether the approach itself is sound, rather than whether the implementation is correct.
This command is read-only. It does not fix code or apply any changes to your repository.

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Get started for freeTalk to us