A review is more useful when the diff is scoped and the working tree is understood. Codex review can inspect base-branch or uncommitted changes without modifying the worktree; use that separation to avoid “reviewing while rewriting.”
1. Check Git status and decide whether you are reviewing uncommitted changes, a branch or a specific commit
Check git status and decide exactly what is under review: uncommitted changes, a commit, or the branch relative to its base. A precise scope prevents old unrelated code from dominating the report.
2. Run /review and select the intended comparison scope
Run `/review` in read-only review mode for that scope and ask it to prioritize behavior, security, regressions and missing tests over formatting. The goal is defect discovery, not style normalization.
3. Read prioritized findings and open the exact diff lines they refer to
Open every cited line in context and verify that the described execution path is actually reachable. Lower-confidence style or maintainability notes should not distract from reproducible failures.
4. Reproduce high-impact findings with tests or a minimal scenario before editing
For high-impact findings, create a minimal test or reproduction before editing. This turns the finding into a regression test and protects against fixing the symptom while preserving the underlying bug.
5. Start a separate fix pass only for confirmed findings, then rerun /review
Make fixes in a separate step, run tests, then execute `/review` again on the resulting diff. The second review should specifically look for regressions introduced by the fix.
Run a read-only review of this branch against [base]. Prioritize correctness, security, regressions and missing tests. Do not edit the worktree. For each high/medium finding, show the affected lines, why it can fail and the smallest reproduction or test that would confirm it.
Reviewing the wrong base branch; treating suggestions as facts; clicking fix before understanding the failure mode; mixing unrelated local changes into the diff; skipping the second review after fixes.
Finish check
The review scope is explicit, every accepted finding is reproducible or otherwise evidenced, the first review did not alter the worktree, and the final diff passes tests and a second review.