dual-review

Dual Reviewer: agy + Codex

Runs agy (Antigravity CLI) and codex review as independent reviewers in parallel, then merges their findings into one unified review.

Review Scope

Determine what to review from user context or ask:

Scope	agy prompt	codex flag
Uncommitted changes	"review the uncommitted changes in this project"	--uncommitted
Branch vs base	"review the changes on this branch compared to <branch>"	--base <branch>
Specific commit	"review commit <sha>"	--commit <sha>

Default to uncommitted changes if not specified.

Parallel Execution

Run both in the same message turn as two independent Bash calls so they execute concurrently.

agy reviewer:

agy --add-dir "$(pwd)" \
    --dangerously-skip-permissions \
    --print-timeout 5m \
    --print "You are a strict code reviewer. Review the uncommitted changes in this project.

For each issue found, use severity:
- P0: blocking — data loss, security hole, crash, broken API contract
- P1: correctness bug, breaking change, violates project conventions
- P2: maintainability defect, design concern, potential future breakage
- P3: optional improvement, does not affect correctness

Format each issue exactly as:
[Pn] <title>
Location: <file>:<line>
Issue: <specific description of what is wrong>
Root cause: <why this is wrong — spec, language rules, or actual behavior>
Impact: <consequence of not fixing>
Fix: <only include if non-obvious>

Rules: No praise. No encouragement. No summary. Issues only. If no issues found, output only: No issues found."

codex reviewer:

codex review --uncommitted \
  "Strict review. For each issue use severity P0/P1/P2/P3 where P0=blocking/security/data-loss, P1=correctness/breaking, P2=maintainability/design, P3=optional.

Format each issue as:
[Pn] <title>
Location: <file>:<line>
Issue: <what is wrong>
Root cause: <why it is wrong>
Impact: <consequence>
Fix: <only if non-obvious>

No praise. No encouragement. Issues only."

Adjust the scope flags to match the chosen review target.

Synthesis

After both complete, merge into one review:

1. Deduplicate: If both flag the same issue (same file, same root cause), show once with [agy+codex]. Being flagged by both reviewers adds confidence — note it concisely.
2. Unique findings: Preserve with [agy] or [codex] source tag. Do not drop unique findings — one reviewer catching what the other missed is the value of running both.
3. Sort: P0 → P1 → P2 → P3. Within same severity, group by file.
4. Do not soften: A valid issue stands regardless of which reviewer raised it.

Output Format

Match the user's review standard (CLAUDE.md):

## Dual Review: agy + Codex

[P0] <title> [<source>]
位置: <file>:<line>
問題: <what is wrong>
技術根據: <why it is wrong — spec, actual behavior, or convention>
影響: <consequence of not fixing>
修正方向: <fix direction, only if non-obvious>

[P1] ...

總計: P0 x個 / P1 x個 / P2 x個 / P3 x個

<source> is [agy], [codex], or [agy+codex].

• Labels and prose: Traditional Chinese
• Technical terms, file paths, identifiers: English
• No trailing remarks after the 總計 line