GPT Pro Research Algorithm Reviewer
Target deep algorithm review, experiment design, and research-level critique rather than ordinary code review.
Role split
- Codex: reads repo, builds context bundle, operates GPT Pro, verifies suggestions against code, implements safe changes.
- GPT Pro: acts as an adversarial algorithm reviewer, experiment designer, and paper/research critic.
Do not let GPT Pro directly drive code edits. Treat GPT Pro output as an external review that must be checked against the repo.
Workflow
- Clarify the algorithm question:
- What is the task?
- What is the new idea or current pipeline?
- What decision does the user need: go/no-go, implementation plan, experiment plan, paper angle, bug diagnosis?
- Preview the route through
$gpt-pro-project-workspace. Preserve its scope,
Project, Thread, and conversation policy throughout the review.
- Use
$bundle-algorithm-context to create a minimal bundle and immutable Codex snapshot.
- Read and submit references/deep_algorithm_review_prompt.md through
$gpt-pro-question-window.
- Capture the raw answer, then validate its structure against references/review_report_schema.md.
- Re-open relevant local files and verify GPT Pro's claims.
- Record the verification as a separate Codex verdict on the same bridge thread.
- Return a Codex-side synthesis:
- Valid suggestions.
- Hallucinated or inapplicable suggestions.
- Minimal experiments.
- Implementation checkpoints.
- Go/no-go judgment.
Completion criterion: every actionable claim is locally classified, missing report sections are identified, and the raw answer and Codex verdict remain separate artifacts.
Required GPT Pro review dimensions
GPT Pro must cover:
- Problem framing.
- Core hypothesis.
- Method decomposition.
- Strongest arguments for and against.
- Hidden assumptions.
- Baseline strength and missing baselines.
- Data, label, split, and leakage risks.
- Reward/loss/optimization risks.
- Agentic/tool/multi-turn pipeline risks, if relevant.
- Evaluation design and offline-online gap.
- Concrete ablation matrix.
- Implementation checkpoints for Codex.
- Paper angle and novelty, if relevant.
- Reviewer objections.
- Minimal experiment plan.
- Go/no-go judgment.
Special checks for RL / OPD / URM / Agentic QA
If the task involves RL, reward modeling, OPD, user feedback, search/QA, or agents, force these checks:
Reward modeling
- Is the reward explicit, implicit, synthetic, judge-based, or hybrid?
- Are weak feedback signals over-interpreted?
- Does reward aggregation hide conflicts across dimensions?
- Is there length, citation, style, verbosity, or tool-use reward hacking risk?
- Is reward calibrated across query types and user segments?
On-policy / off-policy training
- Are rollouts generated by the current student?
- Is training distribution close to inference-time distribution?
- Is filtering changing distribution too aggressively?
- Are credit assignment signals dense enough?
OPD
- Is teacher feedback token-level, step-level, trajectory-level, or final-answer level?
- Does teacher supervise student mistakes under student-induced states?
- Is dense supervision used where sparse reward would fail?
- Are multiple teachers conflicting?
- Is KL direction consistent with the desired behavior?
Agentic workflow
- Is failure from planning, tool selection, tool execution, observation reading, evidence selection, or final answer synthesis?
- Is retrieval quality separated from answer quality?
- Are tool traces logged and evaluated?
- Is credit assignment step-level or only final-answer-level?
Codex-side verification after GPT Pro answers
Before implementing:
- Check whether GPT Pro referenced files or behavior not in the bundle.
- Check whether proposed ablations are feasible in the current codebase.
- Check whether proposed metrics actually exist or need to be added.
- Check whether any suggestion conflicts with user constraints.
- Separate immediate changes from future research directions.
Final Codex answer must include:
## GPT Pro Review Saved At
<path>
## Codex Verification
- Valid:
- Partially valid:
- Not applicable / hallucinated:
## Minimal Experiment Plan
## Code / Config Changes
## Validation Checklist
## Go / No-Go
1---2name: gpt-pro-research-algorithm-reviewer3description: Deep GPT Pro algorithm/research/pipeline review. Use for RL, reward modeling, OPD, agentic workflows, search/QA, training/eval pipelines, or algorithm proposals where Codex needs stronger hypothesis, experiment, ablation, data leakage, novelty, and go/no-go analysis.4---56# GPT Pro Research Algorithm Reviewer78Target deep algorithm review, experiment design, and research-level critique rather than ordinary code review.910## Role split1112- Codex: reads repo, builds context bundle, operates GPT Pro, verifies suggestions against code, implements safe changes.13- GPT Pro: acts as an adversarial algorithm reviewer, experiment designer, and paper/research critic.1415Do not let GPT Pro directly drive code edits. Treat GPT Pro output as an external review that must be checked against the repo.1617## Workflow18191. Clarify the algorithm question:20 - What is the task?21 - What is the new idea or current pipeline?22 - What decision does the user need: go/no-go, implementation plan, experiment plan, paper angle, bug diagnosis?232. Preview the route through `$gpt-pro-project-workspace`. Preserve its scope,24 Project, Thread, and conversation policy throughout the review.253. Use `$bundle-algorithm-context` to create a minimal bundle and immutable Codex snapshot.264. Read and submit [references/deep_algorithm_review_prompt.md](references/deep_algorithm_review_prompt.md) through `$gpt-pro-question-window`.275. Capture the raw answer, then validate its structure against [references/review_report_schema.md](references/review_report_schema.md).286. Re-open relevant local files and verify GPT Pro's claims.297. Record the verification as a separate Codex verdict on the same bridge thread.308. Return a Codex-side synthesis:31 - Valid suggestions.32 - Hallucinated or inapplicable suggestions.33 - Minimal experiments.34 - Implementation checkpoints.35 - Go/no-go judgment.3637Completion criterion: every actionable claim is locally classified, missing report sections are identified, and the raw answer and Codex verdict remain separate artifacts.3839## Required GPT Pro review dimensions4041GPT Pro must cover:42431. Problem framing.442. Core hypothesis.453. Method decomposition.464. Strongest arguments for and against.475. Hidden assumptions.486. Baseline strength and missing baselines.497. Data, label, split, and leakage risks.508. Reward/loss/optimization risks.519. Agentic/tool/multi-turn pipeline risks, if relevant.5210. Evaluation design and offline-online gap.5311. Concrete ablation matrix.5412. Implementation checkpoints for Codex.5513. Paper angle and novelty, if relevant.5614. Reviewer objections.5715. Minimal experiment plan.5816. Go/no-go judgment.5960## Special checks for RL / OPD / URM / Agentic QA6162If the task involves RL, reward modeling, OPD, user feedback, search/QA, or agents, force these checks:6364### Reward modeling6566- Is the reward explicit, implicit, synthetic, judge-based, or hybrid?67- Are weak feedback signals over-interpreted?68- Does reward aggregation hide conflicts across dimensions?69- Is there length, citation, style, verbosity, or tool-use reward hacking risk?70- Is reward calibrated across query types and user segments?7172### On-policy / off-policy training7374- Are rollouts generated by the current student?75- Is training distribution close to inference-time distribution?76- Is filtering changing distribution too aggressively?77- Are credit assignment signals dense enough?7879### OPD8081- Is teacher feedback token-level, step-level, trajectory-level, or final-answer level?82- Does teacher supervise student mistakes under student-induced states?83- Is dense supervision used where sparse reward would fail?84- Are multiple teachers conflicting?85- Is KL direction consistent with the desired behavior?8687### Agentic workflow8889- Is failure from planning, tool selection, tool execution, observation reading, evidence selection, or final answer synthesis?90- Is retrieval quality separated from answer quality?91- Are tool traces logged and evaluated?92- Is credit assignment step-level or only final-answer-level?9394## Codex-side verification after GPT Pro answers9596Before implementing:9798- Check whether GPT Pro referenced files or behavior not in the bundle.99- Check whether proposed ablations are feasible in the current codebase.100- Check whether proposed metrics actually exist or need to be added.101- Check whether any suggestion conflicts with user constraints.102- Separate immediate changes from future research directions.103104Final Codex answer must include:105106```text107## GPT Pro Review Saved At108<path>109110## Codex Verification111- Valid:112- Partially valid:113- Not applicable / hallucinated:114115## Minimal Experiment Plan116117## Code / Config Changes118119## Validation Checklist120121## Go / No-Go122```