openai / openai/codex-plugin-cc

/codex:review caps findings at ~3 — add configurable max or return all material findings

Open
#298 1 comment 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
JavaScript
Stars
33.3k
Forks
2.3k
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Description

Problem

Native /codex:review consistently returns at most 2–3 findings per run, regardless of diff size. On a ~1000-line refactor touching 13 files, the reviewer found real P1/P2 bugs — but only 2–3 per iteration. It took 8 sequential review→fix cycles to surface ~20 legitimate issues that were all present in the original diff.

This forces a tedious manual loop:

  1. /codex:review → get 3 findings
  2. Fix them
  3. /codex:review → get 3 more
  4. Fix them
  5. Repeat 6+ more times

Each cycle costs tokens and wall-clock time. The reviewer clearly can find more issues — it just stops early.

Expected behavior

The reviewer should return all material findings it discovers, not an arbitrary subset. At minimum, provide a way to configure the cap:

/codex:review --max-findings 10

or a setting in /codex:setup:

{ "reviewMaxFindings": 10 }

Context

  • /codex:adversarial-review uses a local prompt (prompts/adversarial-review.md) without a hard cap — but native review goes through the review/start server API where the limit appears to be baked in.
  • Issue #6 mentions "Top 3 focus areas only" for diffs <50 lines, but this cap seems to apply universally regardless of diff size.
  • A reasonable default could scale with diff size (as #6 proposes), but even a static configurable max would be a big improvement.

Workaround

Currently using iterative review→fix loops, which works but is slow and expensive.


This issue was co-authored with Claude Code (Opus 4.6) during a real review session where the 3-finding cap was the bottleneck.

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start at the /codex:review entry point and trace its request to the review/start server API; compare it with prompts/adversarial-review.md and the configuration path in /codex:setup. Define whether a command flag or setting controls the limit, then verify that a large diff can return more than three material findings without iterative review cycles.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
javascript
Domain
api, cli
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Quiet
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
48/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.