name: codex-validate-plan description: Validate architecture/plan quality via claude-delegator (Plan Reviewer expert). Use after writing context.md for complex feature/refactor work. context: fork
Codex Plan Validation (via claude-delegator)
When to use
complexity:complextaskType:featureorrefactorcontext.mdexists or was updated
Procedure
Step 1: Check MCP Availability (CRITICAL - Do This First)
Before any validation work, verify Codex MCP is available:
// Try a simple MCP call to check availability
try {
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: "ping",
sandbox: "read-only",
cwd: process.cwd()
})
// If successful, MCP is available
} catch (error) {
// MCP not available - proceed with Claude fallback
}
MCP Unavailable Conditions:
- Tool not found / not registered
- "quota exceeded", "rate limit", "API error", "unavailable"
- Connection timeout
- Any error response
Step 2-6: Validation Process
-
Collect the path to context.md (default:
{tasksRoot}/{feature-name}/context.md) and read its content -
Build delegation prompt using the 7-section format below
-
If MCP is available (from Step 1):
- Call
mcp__codex__codex(include Plan Reviewer instructions in developer-instructions) - If successful, proceed to step 6
- Call
-
If MCP is unavailable (from Step 1):
- Claude directly performs the plan review following the Plan Reviewer guidelines below
- Add note:
"codex-fallback: Claude performed review directly (MCP unavailable)" - Follow the same MUST DO / MUST NOT DO criteria
-
Summarize critical/warning/suggestion items and decide pass/fail
-
Per
.claude/docs/guidelines/document-memory-policy.md: Store full review inarchives/review-v{n}.md, keep only short summary incontext.md
Delegation Format
Use the 7-section format:
TASK: Review implementation plan at [context.md path] for completeness and clarity.
EXPECTED OUTCOME: APPROVE/REJECT verdict with specific feedback.
CONTEXT:
- Plan to review: [content of context.md]
- Goals: [what the plan is trying to achieve]
- Constraints: [project constraints]
MUST DO:
- Evaluate all 4 criteria (Clarity, Verifiability, Completeness, Big Picture)
- Simulate actually doing the work to find gaps
- Provide specific improvements if rejecting
MUST NOT DO:
- Rubber-stamp without real analysis
- Provide vague feedback
- Approve plans with critical gaps
OUTPUT FORMAT:
[APPROVE / REJECT]
Justification: [explanation]
Summary: [4-criteria assessment]
[If REJECT: Top 3-5 improvements needed]
Tool Call (When MCP Available)
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: "[7-section delegation prompt with full context]",
"developer-instructions": "[contents of plan-reviewer.md]",
sandbox: "read-only", // Advisory mode
cwd: "[current working directory]"
})
Claude Fallback (When MCP Unavailable)
When MCP is not available, Claude performs the validation directly:
- Apply the same 7-section format as a self-review checklist
- Evaluate all 4 criteria:
- Clarity: Are the goals and steps clearly defined?
- Verifiability: Can success be measured objectively?
- Completeness: Are all necessary steps included?
- Big Picture: Does it align with overall architecture?
- Output in the same format: APPROVE/REJECT with justification
- Add note indicating fallback mode was used
Output (patch)
notes:
- "codex-plan: [APPROVE/REJECT], warnings=[count]"
# If fallback was used:
- "codex-fallback: Claude performed review directly (MCP unavailable)"