# /codex:review vs /codex:adversarial-review: Key Differences in OpenAI's Codex Plugin > Understand the key differences between OpenAI's /codex:review and /codex:adversarial-review commands. Discover how each approach enhances your code quality. - Repository: [OpenAI/codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc) - Tags: deep-dive - Published: 2026-07-10 --- **The `/codex:review` command performs a standard code review for implementation defects and style issues, while `/codex:adversarial-review` actively challenges design decisions and accepts optional focus arguments to target specific concerns.** In the openai/codex-plugin-cc repository, both commands are review-only slash commands that run through the shared plugin runtime, but they serve fundamentally different purposes in the code review workflow. Understanding the difference between `/codex:review` and `/codex:adversarial-review` helps you select the appropriate level of scrutiny for your changes, from straightforward bug checking to adversarial design challenges. ## Core Purpose and Framing Philosophy ### Standard Review Command The `/codex:review` command provides a neutral, straightforward code review focused on implementation defects, style issues, and bugs. According to the command definition in [`plugins/codex/commands/review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/review.md), this command does **not** accept extra free-form focus arguments, maintaining a consistent scope across all runs. ### Adversarial Review Command In contrast, `/codex:adversarial-review` explicitly frames the review as a challenge to your current approach. As defined in [`plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/commands/adversarial-review.md), this command encourages the model to surface design-level concerns, question trade-offs, and scrutinize underlying assumptions rather than simply checking for correctness. ## Command Syntax and Flag Support Both commands share identical base flags and execution modes, but differ in their handling of trailing arguments: - **Shared flags**: Both support `--wait`, `--background`, `--base `, and `--scope auto|working-tree|branch` - **Focus text**: Only `/codex:adversarial-review` accepts optional free-form focus arguments after the flags ## The Focus Argument (Adversarial-Review Only) The key syntactic difference lies in the optional focus parameter. When running an adversarial review, you can append specific concerns to narrow the review scope: ```bash /codex adversarial-review --scope branch --base main performance security ``` In this example, the trailing words `performance` and `security` become the focus argument, directing the review to scrutinize those specific aspects. This functionality is absent in the standard review command. ## Shared Runtime and Execution Flow Despite their different philosophies, both commands invoke the same runtime script with different subcommands. According to the source in `plugins/codex/scripts/codex-companion.mjs`, the execution splits based on the command type: - **Standard review**: `node …/codex-companion.mjs review "$ARGUMENTS"` - **Adversarial review**: `node …/codex-companion.mjs adversarial-review "$ARGUMENTS"` Both commands follow the identical "size-estimate → ask user" flow. If no `--wait` or `--background` flag is supplied, the plugin estimates the diff size and recommends either "Wait for results" (for tiny diffs) or "Run in background" (for larger work), marking the recommended option accordingly. ## Implementation Details and Prompt Templates The distinct behaviors stem from different prompt templates in the repository: - **Standard review**: Uses [`plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md) for normal review framing - **Adversarial review**: Uses [`plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md) to shape the "challenge" tone Both commands maintain the same constraints: they are review-only operations that provide verbatim output without patching or fixing code. ## Practical Usage Examples Basic foreground execution for standard review: ```bash /codex review --wait ``` Adversarial review against a specific branch: ```bash /codex adversarial-review --wait --base main ``` Background execution with working-tree scope: ```bash /codex adversarial-review --scope working-tree ``` Adversarial review with specific focus areas: ```bash /codex adversarial-review --base develop performance security ``` ## Summary - **Primary distinction**: `/codex:review` checks for bugs and style issues, while `/codex:adversarial-review` challenges design decisions and assumptions - **Syntax difference**: Only the adversarial variant accepts optional focus text to target specific concerns - **Shared infrastructure**: Both commands use `codex-companion.mjs` and support identical flags (`--wait`, `--background`, `--base`, `--scope`) - **Execution flow**: Both follow the same size-estimation and recommendation logic for foreground vs background execution - **Prompt sourcing**: Different prompt templates in `plugins/codex/prompts/` define the distinct review tones ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Can I use focus arguments with `/codex:review`? 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. This functionality is exclusive to `/codex:adversarial-review`, which optionally accepts trailing text to direct the review toward specific concerns like "performance" or "security". ### Do both commands support background execution? Yes, both commands support the `--background` flag and the `--wait` flag. When neither flag is provided, both commands trigger the same size-estimation logic that recommends either waiting for results or running in a background task based on the diff size. ### Which prompt template does the adversarial review use? The adversarial review uses the template defined in [`plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/adversarial-review.md), which frames the review as an active challenge to the current implementation approach. The standard review uses [`plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md`](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc/blob/main/plugins/codex/prompts/stop-review-gate.md) instead. ### Can I run an adversarial review against a specific git branch? Yes, both commands support the `--base ` flag. For example, `/codex adversarial-review --base main` runs the adversarial review comparing your current state against the main branch, applying the same scope selection logic as the standard review command.