Skip to main content
Glama
AmirShayegh

codex-claude-bridge

by AmirShayegh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

review_plan

Get an independent review of your implementation plan before coding. Returns a verdict, findings, and a session ID to carry context into the next review.

Instructions

Get an independent code review of your implementation plan before writing code. Call this after drafting a plan and before implementing it. Returns a verdict (approve/revise/reject), findings, session_id, responding models, and persistence provenance. Pass the returned session_id to review_code later so the reviewer has full context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoAbsolute path to the directory this review runs in — the repository or git worktree whose code is being reviewed. Auto-capture, repository instruction files, and the reviewer subprocess all use it. Always pass it: an auto-capturing review without it is refused unless the server is configured with "require_cwd": false, in which case the server's launch directory is used. Must be absolute; "~" is not expanded. Applies to this call only — pass it again on resume.
planYesThe implementation plan to review
tierNoPick the reviewing model by capability tier instead of by id: "max" (hardest problems — architecture, concurrency, security, subtle bugs), "balanced" (everyday review), or "fast" (small diffs, precommit sanity, quick iteration). Tiers map per provider (Codex: gpt-6-astra / gpt-5.6-sol / gpt-5.6-luna; Gemini: 3.1 Pro (High) / 3.8 Flash (High) / 3.8 Flash (Medium)) and survive failover. Pass either tier or model, not both.
depthNoReview depth
focusNoReview focus areas
modelNoOverride the configured default model for this call with a concrete id (e.g. "gpt-5.6-sol") or "latest". To choose by capability use the tier parameter instead (a tier word is still accepted here). May be combined with session_id to change model mid-session; without it a resumed session keeps the model it was recorded with. Compare returned resolved and observed labels for runtime changes.
contextNoProject context and constraints
deliberateNoPer-call override of the configured review mode: true = both providers review (deliberation); false = single provider with failover. Omit to use the configured mode. Requires a two-provider setup; requesting deliberation under a single-provider config returns an error. Under deliberate-deep, the returned verdict reflects both providers' independent reviews and is NOT recomputed from cross-review adjudications — treat deliberation.divergent[].adjudication as advisory input for your own synthesis.
session_idNoContinue from a previous review session

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.9.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{}
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / description
      Previous value: -"Override the configured default model for this call (e.g., \"gpt-5.6-sol\"), or \"latest\". Or pick a tier instead of a model id: \"max\" (hardest problems — architecture, concurrency, security, subtle bugs), \"balanced\" (everyday review), or \"fast\" (small diffs, precommit sanity, quick iteration). Tiers map per provider (Codex: gpt-6-astra / gpt-5.6-sol / gpt-5.6-luna; Gemini: 3.1 Pro (High) / 3.8 Flash (High) / 3.8 Flash (Medium)) and survive failover. May be combined with session_id to change model mid-session; without it a resumed session keeps the model it was recorded with. Compare returned resolved and observed labels for runtime changes."New value: +"Override the configured default model for this call with a concrete id (e.g. \"gpt-5.6-sol\") or \"latest\". To choose by capability use the tier parameter instead (a tier word is still accepted here). May be combined with session_id to change model mid-session; without it a resumed session keeps the model it was recorded with. Compare returned resolved and observed labels for runtime changes."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tier
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pick the reviewing model by capability tier instead of by id: \"max\" (hardest problems — architecture, concurrency, security, subtle bugs), \"balanced\" (everyday review), or \"fast\" (small diffs, precommit sanity, quick iteration). Tiers map per provider (Codex: gpt-6-astra / gpt-5.6-sol / gpt-5.6-luna; Gemini: 3.1 Pro (High) / 3.8 Flash (High) / 3.8 Flash (Medium)) and survive failover. Pass either tier or model, not both.",
+  "enum": [
+    "max",
+    "balanced",
+    "fast"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return contract (verdict, findings, session_id, responding models, persistence provenance) and session-chaining behavior. However, it omits operational traits such as side effects, external provider interaction, or read-only guarantees; the schema's mention of auto-capture and subprocess appears only in parameter docs, not in the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose/timing, expected output, and follow-up action. No filler, and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational loop: when to call, what to expect, and how to carry context forward. The rich parameter descriptions and enums fill most remaining gaps. Minor omissions like error conditions or provider requirements keep it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers all 9 parameters with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level context by explaining how the returned session_id chains into review_code, which is more than a restatement. It does not clarify individual parameters like tier or deliberate, but the schema already handles those well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear, specific purpose: reviewing an implementation plan before code is written. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'review of your implementation plan' distinguishes it from siblings like review_code or review_precommit, which target code or commits. The timing ('before writing code') fully separates it from the rest of the family.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly prescribes when to call: 'after drafting a plan and before implementing it.' It also names the natural successor, review_code, and instructs passing the session_id for full context, giving an agent a clear workflow. It doesn't enumerate all sibling exclusions, but the timing and next-step guidance are strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools