# Codex Review vs Adversarial Review: Understanding the Difference Between `/codex review` and `/codex adversarial-review` > Discover the key differences between Codex review and adversarial review endpoints. Understand when to use /codex review for defects and /codex adversarial-review for design challenges. - Repository: [OpenAI/codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc) - Tags: deep-dive - Published: 2026-07-28 --- **Both `/codex review` and `/codex adversarial-review` are read-only slash commands that invoke the same shared plugin runtime in the `openai/codex-plugin-cc` repository, but the standard review checks for implementation defects while the adversarial review challenges design assumptions and trade-offs with an optional focus parameter.** Understanding the difference between Codex review and adversarial review endpoints is essential for selecting the right automated code analysis approach. While both commands execute through identical runtime mechanics and file-handling logic in the `openai/codex-plugin-cc` codebase, they differ fundamentally in intent, prompt framing, and input flexibility. This guide examines the under-the-hood implementation details that distinguish these two review modes. ## Shared Runtime Architecture Both commands operate as *review-only* slash commands that run through the shared plugin runtime. They utilize identical mechanics for selecting the review target—whether the **working-tree**, a **branch diff**, or an explicit `--base` reference—and follow the same execution-mode logic for **foreground** versus **background** processing. According to the source code in [`plugins/codex/commands/review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/review.md) and [`plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md), both endpoints enforce the same constraints: they perform no patching or fixing operations and return verbatim output from the Codex model. When neither `--wait` nor `--background` flags are supplied, both commands execute a "size-estimate → ask user" flow, where the plugin estimates diff size and recommends either waiting for results or running in a background task. ## Key Differences in Purpose and Implementation ### Review Intent and Framing The standard **`/codex review`** command performs a straightforward code review targeting implementation defects, style issues, and bugs. It maintains a neutral framing—simply instructing the model to "run a review"—using the prompt template defined in [`plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md). In contrast, **`/codex adversarial-review`** actively challenges the overall design, implementation approach, trade-offs, and assumptions. This command uses the prompt template in [`plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md) to explicitly frame the review as a *challenge* to the current approach, encouraging the model to surface design-level concerns rather than just localized bugs. ### Focus Text Support A critical functional difference is the **focus text** parameter. The standard review command does not accept extra free-form focus arguments. The adversarial review command, however, accepts an optional `focus …` argument that allows users to direct scrutiny toward specific concerns. For example, trailing words like `performance security` become the focus argument, directing the adversarial review to scrutinize those specific aspects. This functionality is parsed in the command definition at [`plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md). ### Command Flags and Execution Hooks Both commands support identical base flags: `--wait`, `--background`, `--base `, and `--scope auto|working-tree|branch`. However, the adversarial review additionally accepts the optional focus text after these flags. Under the hood, the implementation diverges in the companion script invocation: - Standard review calls: `node …/codex-companion.mjs review "$ARGUMENTS"` - Adversarial review calls: `node …/codex-companion.mjs adversarial-review "$ARGUMENTS"` Both invocations target the shared runtime script at `plugins/codex/scripts/codex-companion.mjs`, but pass different command identifiers that trigger distinct prompt templates. ## Practical Usage Examples The following examples demonstrate the syntax differences and execution modes for both endpoints. Run a standard review immediately in the foreground: ```text /codex review --wait ``` Run an adversarial review against the `main` branch with foreground execution: ```text /codex adversarial-review --wait --base main ``` Launch a standard review with automatic background detection (the plugin estimates diff size and recommends execution mode): ```text /codex review ``` Execute an adversarial review focused on specific concerns: ```text /codex adversarial-review --scope branch --base develop performance security ``` In the adversarial example, the trailing words `performance security` serve as the **focus** argument, restricting the adversarial analysis to those specific domains. ## Source Code Structure The differentiation between these endpoints is maintained across several key files in the `openai/codex-plugin-cc` repository: - **[`plugins/codex/commands/review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/review.md)**: Defines the standard review command logic and execution flow. - **[`plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md)**: Defines the adversarial review command, including focus text parsing. - **`plugins/codex/scripts/codex-companion.mjs`**: The shared runtime entry point invoked by both commands. - **[`plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md)**: Contains the prompt template that establishes the adversarial "challenge" tone. - **[`plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md)**: Contains the prompt template for standard review framing. ## Summary - Both `/codex review` and `/codex adversarial-review` are read-only commands that share the same target selection, execution mode logic, and runtime constraints in `openai/codex-plugin-cc`. - The **standard review** provides neutral, implementation-focused analysis for bugs and style issues. - The **adversarial review** challenges design assumptions and trade-offs using a distinct prompt template. - Only the adversarial review accepts optional **focus text** to target specific concerns like performance or security. - Both commands invoke `codex-companion.mjs` but pass different command identifiers (`review` vs `adversarial-review`). - When executed without `--wait` or `--background`, both use a size-estimation heuristic to recommend the appropriate execution mode. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Can I use focus text with the standard `/codex review` command? No. The standard review command defined in [`plugins/codex/commands/review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/review.md) does not accept extra free-form focus arguments. Only the adversarial review command supports trailing focus text to direct the model's attention toward specific concerns. ### Do both commands modify code or create patches? No. Both commands are strictly review-only operations that enforce **no patching or fixing** constraints. They return verbatim output from the Codex model without altering the underlying codebase. ### Which command should I use for detecting security vulnerabilities? Use **`/codex adversarial-review`** with a focus text argument specifying "security". While the standard review checks for implementation defects, the adversarial review's challenge framing and focus parameter make it better suited for scrutinizing security assumptions and trade-offs in the design. ### How does the plugin decide between foreground and background execution? If you omit both `--wait` and `--background` flags, the plugin estimates the diff size and presents two options: "Wait for results" or "Run in background", marking the recommended choice based on the estimated workload. This logic applies identically to both review commands according to the source implementation.