L2

L2: Implement, Then Codex Review

When the user invokes $L2, treat the rest of their request as the original requirement. Preserve that requirement byte-for-byte; quote it verbatim in the Codex review prompt.

Workflow

1. Implement the requirement

• Understand the requirement and ask only genuinely blocking clarification questions.
• Implement the requested change using the repo's existing patterns.
• You may use subagents for independent implementation, planning, or review work when the task is complex and decomposable.
• Do not commit. Leave changes as working-tree edits so they appear in git diff.
• If a commit was already made during the task, warn that the default L2 review only sees unstaged changes and ask whether to soft-reset or review a specific commit range.

2. Check that unstaged changes exist

When implementation is done, run:

git diff --quiet && { echo "no unstaged changes detected"; exit 0; }

• Use git diff --quiet without --staged or HEAD; this checks only unstaged working-tree changes.
• If exit code is 0, tell the user no unstaged changes detected and stop.
• Do not write the diff to a patch file. Codex will read git diff itself.

3. Run Codex auto-review

Pass only the original requirement plus navigation instructions. Let Codex read the diff and related files itself with git diff, cat, and rg.

Use printf '%s' so shell metacharacters inside the requirement are not expanded:

{
  printf 'review 一下未提交的改动是否完成了下面的需求：\n\n"%s"\n\n你 CWD 就是项目根。请自己用：\n- git diff 看未提交改动\n- cat / rg 读相关文件做联动检查。\n\n## 严重度门槛（硬性要求）\n\n只输出 **P0** 问题。P0 的定义严格限定为以下三类：\n1. 需求里明确要求的功能没实现 / 实现错了\n2. 改动引入了功能性 bug（跑起来会报错、行为和需求矛盾、破坏了已有功能）\n3. 改动里有明显的安全漏洞（注入、鉴权绕过、密钥泄露这种，不是泛泛的"建议加校验"）\n\n**禁止输出以下内容**（哪怕你觉得很有道理）：\n- 代码风格、命名、格式\n- 重构建议、抽象层次、设计模式\n- "可以更健壮"、"建议加错误处理"、"可以加日志"、"可以加测试"\n- 性能优化（除非需求明确要求性能）\n- 未来可扩展性、边界情况补强\n- 文档 / 注释缺失\n- 任何 nice-to-have\n\n如果没有 P0 问题，**只输出一行**：`no blocking issues — 需求已完成`。不要补充"但是建议..."、"另外可以考虑..."。\n\n如果有 P0，按这个格式输出，每条都要给出"为什么这是 P0 而不是 nice-to-have"的一句话理由：\n```\n[P0] <一句话问题描述>\n  位置: <file:line>\n  为什么阻塞: <对照需求的哪一条 / 会导致什么功能性后果>\n```\n' "$ORIGINAL_REQUIREMENT"
} | codex exec \
  --skip-git-repo-check \
  --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox \
  -m gpt-5.5 \
  --config model_reasoning_effort="high" \
  2>/dev/null

Notes:

• $ORIGINAL_REQUIREMENT must be the user's exact text.
• 2>/dev/null hides Codex stderr and leaves stdout for the user.
• --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox avoids Codex's bwrap sandbox failures in environments where loopback setup is unavailable. The review prompt is read-oriented, but still inspect output carefully before acting on it.

4. Display Codex output verbatim

Show the complete Codex stdout to the user as-is. Do not summarize, filter, re-rank, apply fixes, commit, or decide next steps. Stop and wait for the user's instruction.

Edge Cases

• Empty diff after implementation: tell the user the workflow produced no changes and stop.
• Implementation requires commits: Codex only sees unstaged changes by default. Add explicit review scope such as git diff <base>..HEAD plus git diff, after confirming the base with the user.
• Codex CLI missing or errors: surface the error verbatim; do not retry silently.
• Requirement contains shell-special characters: the printf '%s' "$ORIGINAL_REQUIREMENT" form handles this. If using a heredoc instead, use <<'EOF'.