Get Claude Code's second opinion on a proposal or implementation. Use when the user asks to consult Claude, requests Claude's design judgment or research, or invokes a design-review workflow that includes Claude. Do not enlist Claude merely because a task is complex.
69
87%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Codex briefs Claude on the problem and evidence. For an adversarial design review, the first brief omits the proposed design and reasoning; a follow-up provides them after Claude's independent initial answer. Claude reads the current checkout and returns its judgment, alternatives, and objections. Codex owns implementation and verification; when Claude needs a test, benchmark, or experiment, it requests that evidence from Codex.
Supply the desired outcome, genuine constraints, representative callsites, and relevant existing implementation excerpts with source paths. For a blind adversarial design pass, withhold proposed API code and your engineering reasoning until Claude has answered from the outcome and callers. Then supply the proposal, reasoning, and unresolved questions in the same session. For other consultations, include actual and proposed API code up front. Use an ASCII diagram when it clarifies ownership, lifecycle, or data flow. Distinguish observed facts, proposals, assumptions, and preferences. Give enough concrete evidence to judge the decision; Claude can read further to verify your account.
For design questions, have Claude apply adversarial-review itself, without launching another reviewer. That skill's coordinator owns reviewer selection; this consultation supplies its Claude reviewer or a standalone Claude opinion. A standalone request for Claude's opinion does not itself launch a Codex reviewer. Explicitly ask for the strongest greenfield direction: starting from the desired outcome and actual callers, what would it build if the current abstraction did not exist? Treat your reasoning as evidence, not constraints. Ask for concrete signatures and callsites, what disappears, new complexity, and requirements being questioned. Keeping the design is valid when it earns its place. A narrow question does not require a full architectural report.
Requires Bun, Git, and authenticated Claude Code 2.1.280 or later with access to
the selected model. Use --effort high for an adversarial architecture review,
including follow-ups. Use xhigh only for a focused unresolved decision, then
return to high. For narrower consultations, omit --effort and let Claude Code
select its configured or model default. Run from this repository; supply the
brief directly on stdin:
bun .agents/skills/consult-claude/scripts/consult-claude.ts --effort high <<'BRIEF'
[Concrete question, code blocks, source paths, diagram, reasoning, uncertainties.]
BRIEFOn macOS, the Codex workspace sandbox can hide Claude Code Keychain login.
Treat a sandboxed claude auth status result of loggedIn: false as
inconclusive. Request the same status check outside the sandbox. If it reports
true, run the launcher and its follow-ups outside the sandbox. Keep the
launcher read-only Claude restrictions in place; do not log in again, export
credentials, or switch the whole Codex task to Full access for this case.
The launcher runs one native print-mode turn in the current checkout with only Read, Glob, and Grep. Restricted mode, blocked MCP tools, disabled hooks, and outside-read restrictions enforce the boundary. It creates no replica, brief file, or checkpoint. Claude Code owns session storage. Keep the reviewed files stable during each turn; identify changed files when supplying fresh evidence.
Read the native JSON result, including result, session_id, is_error, and
any permission denials. A process starting or exiting successfully is not proof
of a successful consultation. Preserve the session ID for follow-ups.
bun .agents/skills/consult-claude/scripts/consult-claude.ts --effort high --resume <session_id> <<'EVIDENCE'
[Requested evidence, commands and relevant raw output, changed source, next question.]
EVIDENCEResume only a completed consultation from this launcher, in the same checkout. The launcher reapplies the access boundary on every turn. If the shell tool yields a running process, keep monitoring it and provide progress updates. There is no interactive attach step.
--model selects a model; the default is claude-opus-5-5.
--effort selects the effort for this launch; omitting it leaves effort selection
to Claude Code.
--dry-run previews launch arguments without invoking Claude. Consult the native
result or transcript before attributing findings to a model: access restrictions
and fallback can change the model used.
Evaluate objections yourself. When Claude requests evidence, run useful checks within the user's existing authorization and return the commands, relevant raw results, and source state. An advice-only request does not authorize edits. Ask before materially expanding the task; prior authorization still applies.
Codex normally runs experiments. If the user explicitly delegates experimental execution to Claude, arrange an appropriately isolated workspace for that task separately. This launcher never grants write or execution tools, and elapsed time alone does not justify a new workspace or broader delegation.
Return the recommendation, supporting evidence, and remaining disagreement. Stop when the bounded decision has enough evidence; consensus is not required.
Read the example and evaluation cases when
evaluating this workflow or revising the skills. For launcher changes, verify
claude --version, claude --help, the official
CLI reference, and
programmatic usage. Native Claude
sessions own conversation history; the launcher owns only access and transport.
f9441c8
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.